I do like Obama

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 30 2008, 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, I can see DD being a little upset that Obama suggests he shops at the Guns & Banjos store.</div>

Actually, I had forgotten about the "cling to guns and religion" remark, but it does go to show that his claims to not know what his pastor was preaching was the biggest piece of campaign bs to be thrown out there since Slick Willie's "I did not inhale." Why should I believe that Obama isn't in lockstep with Wright when he clearly is lying about knowing what he pastor preaches, I've seen him embrace one of the biggest racists on the planet, Al Sharpton, and he makes this stupid stereotype and gives a half-hearted apology that's basically a "I'm sorry I called you a narrow minded, religious racist, but it is true."

“Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that, but the <u>underlying truth of what I said remains</u>, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so.”

The idiot needs to crack a history book. A lot of appalachian families are made up of Irish immigrants who faced plenty of racial discrimination of their own. I'm proud to be the great-grandson of a Harlan, Kentucky coal miner and WWII vet and I'm proud to be the great-grandson of Hungarian immigrants on the other side of the family. I'm a Christian and, unlike Obama, I know what my preacher says from the pulpit and wouldn't be embarrassed to have anyone visit my church or apologize for the message. As a homeless worker, I know a lot of Christians that spend their time and money helping the Baptist Center feed, clothe, provide other basic needs and love on the homeless. They value their Bibles much more than their guns and most don't even own guns. I know I don't. So no, I don't appreciate Obama's stupid sterotypes.

 

The left will never "STFU." By this logic the left should have STFU 20 years ago after Jimmy Carter's disastorous presidency and Ronald Reagan's presidency.

 

You weren't even ALIVE during Reagan's presidency.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Aug 1 2008, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You weren't even ALIVE during Reagan's presidency.</div>

That really is a stupid statement. I wasn't aware I was supposed to be alive while that President was in office to talk about him, what he did, or his legacy.

I guess none of us can talk about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, since we weren't alive. But I suppose I can talk about George H.W. Bush, even though I was a toddler during his presidency.

That's some nutty logic. FWIW, I was born about 96 hours after he left office.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 1 2008, 06:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Aug 1 2008, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You weren't even ALIVE during Reagan's presidency.</div>

Dumpy, that really is a stupid statement.

</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 1 2008, 06:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually Dumpy, that's good logic.

Now in the future twenty years from now, when kids born after 1/20/09 tell me that Bush was a horrible President, I'll tell them to STFU because they weren't alive during Bush's presidency!</div>

You don't get it, do you? There's a MATERIAL difference between saying, "I wasn't alive, but from what I've read, I think Reagan was a great president," and "the left should have shut the **** up after Reagan's presidency." You are imposing your mindset onto others that, because they were ALIVE, may have had a different impression and, yes, recollection of his two terms. Because you weren't alive, you can not fully appreciate the complexities that existed in those eight years. Sure, you can say statements like "Reagan ended the cold war," and "Reagan's fiscal policies rescued the country from high inflation and led to the economic expansion that followed," but you have no right to denigrate those that are focused on other things that happened during those years, things that you either don't know about or choose to ignore. I don't want to get fixated on Reagan, because it is far off-point, but, for instance, if you were a homosexual in the '80s, you'd have a far different opinion of the man. Simply because he did some things well does NOT give you the RIGHT to tell others--who lived during those times--that they can not and should not be critical. I wish I could say it clearer. You're better than that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Aug 1 2008, 07:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 1 2008, 06:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually Dumpy, that's good logic.

Now in the future twenty years from now, when kids born after 1/20/09 tell me that Bush was a horrible President, I'll tell them to STFU because they weren't alive during Bush's presidency!</div>

You don't get it, do you? There's a MATERIAL difference between saying, "I wasn't alive, but from what I've read, I think Reagan was a great president," and "the left should have shut the **** up after Reagan's presidency." You are imposing your mindset onto others that, because they were ALIVE, may have had a different impression and, yes, recollection of his two terms. Because you weren't alive, you can not fully appreciate the complexities that existed in those eight years. Sure, you can say statements like "Reagan ended the cold war," and "Reagan's fiscal policies rescued the country from high inflation and led to the economic expansion that followed," but you have no right to denigrate those that are focused on other things that happened during those years, things that you either don't know about or choose to ignore. I don't want to get fixated on Reagan, because it is far off-point, but, for instance, if you were a homosexual in the '80s, you'd have a far different opinion of the man. Simply because he did some things well does NOT give you the RIGHT to tell others--who lived during those times--that they can not and should not be critical. I wish I could say it clearer. You're better than that.
</div>

There's no doubt that different people will have different opinions of the man, just as they would on any public figure.

Denny was commenting on how if Obama goes into office and screws up, the left wouldn't be able to talk anymore, since they had their chance in the White House, and screwed up, and I was commenting on how the left would never do that, since Jimmy Carter was an unpopular president who by many accounts didn't do so well, and was succeeded by a Republican who was very popular and by many accounts did a good job. Yet there were still Democrats who said their agenda was better and four years later Clinton was elected. You don't have to be alive or remember the times to realize this.

The right will never STFU either. Is the Republican party folding this year against Obama? I didn't think so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 1 2008, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Aug 1 2008, 07:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 1 2008, 06:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually Dumpy, that's good logic.

Now in the future twenty years from now, when kids born after 1/20/09 tell me that Bush was a horrible President, I'll tell them to STFU because they weren't alive during Bush's presidency!</div>

You don't get it, do you? There's a MATERIAL difference between saying, "I wasn't alive, but from what I've read, I think Reagan was a great president," and "the left should have shut the **** up after Reagan's presidency." You are imposing your mindset onto others that, because they were ALIVE, may have had a different impression and, yes, recollection of his two terms. Because you weren't alive, you can not fully appreciate the complexities that existed in those eight years. Sure, you can say statements like "Reagan ended the cold war," and "Reagan's fiscal policies rescued the country from high inflation and led to the economic expansion that followed," but you have no right to denigrate those that are focused on other things that happened during those years, things that you either don't know about or choose to ignore. I don't want to get fixated on Reagan, because it is far off-point, but, for instance, if you were a homosexual in the '80s, you'd have a far different opinion of the man. Simply because he did some things well does NOT give you the RIGHT to tell others--who lived during those times--that they can not and should not be critical. I wish I could say it clearer. You're better than that.
</div>

There's no doubt that different people will have different opinions of the man, just as they would on any public figure.

Denny was commenting on how if Obama goes into office and screws up, the left wouldn't be able to talk anymore, since they had their chance in the White House, and screwed up, and I was commenting on how the left would never do that, since Jimmy Carter was an unpopular president who by many accounts didn't do so well, and was succeeded by a Republican who was very popular and by many accounts did a good job. Yet there were still Democrats who said their agenda was better and four years later Clinton was elected. You don't have to be alive or remember the times to realize this.

The right will never STFU either. Is the Republican party folding this year against Obama? I didn't think so.
</div>

A couple of comments. First, the ideas and ideals espoused by the "left" and "right" have shifted over the years. Many positions once considered "left" are now mainstream; the same can be said for positions once considered "right." Everything is dynamic. It is overly simplistic to go back 20 years and to say that the "right" or "left" was proven correct or incorrect, as the case may be. Positions change; and conditions change. That said, perhaps I should remind you that Reagan was succeeded by his vice president, who enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings ever recorded with roughly 18 months remaining in his term. I believe he was up around 70%. Obviously, to get that kind of support, there couldn't be a left-right spectrum divide such as what it appears you are alleging. He was well on his way to getting re-elected in a landslide. Then things kind of . . . fell apart. To lose the support he lost in such a short time was due to more than just the democrats supporting a wholly different agenda--he lost the support of independents, moderates, and a whole bunch of republicans, also.

and, for the record, I've voted for democrats; I've voted for republicans. More often than not, I don't vote at all. I am currently registered as an independent. I would consider myself liberal on most (but not all) social issues, but a fiscal conservative; the politician that comes closest to my point of view, as far as I can tell, is a republican--schwarzenegger, as hard as it is for me to say that without feeling ridiculous. I have not decided who I will vote for for president.

 

The far right is LeBron James?