This is change?
By Tillie Brown - 11/21/08
It seems that the minority of voters in Montana who supported Senator Obama for President failed to take into consideration his positions on some of the major issues of the day. The idea that putting our coal companies out of business by using environmental regulations and some form of carbon credits was put forth by Obama along with his statement that energy prices will go up substantially in an Obama administration. One wonders how devastating this would be to the Montana economy and to the budgets of those in Montana who can least afford it? President elect Obama told us that he would bring new faces and change to Washington. To this point everyone he has appointed or been thinking of appointing to his administration is a carryover from the Clinton administration and a Washington insider. What change and where are the new faces? We hope that Obama will use common sense in his administration but if past performance is an indicator fasten your seat belts, the next four years are going to be a bumpy ride.
Tillie Brown
527 Broadway
Tillie Brown
527 Broadway
Current rating: 3.4 with 10 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
IR editor wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:36 AM:
" This forum has devolved into personal name-calling, and we are therefore ceasing any more posts here.
In the future, please keep all posts focused on discussing issues, not discrediting others through personal attacks.
John Doran, editor, Independent Record "
In the future, please keep all posts focused on discussing issues, not discrediting others through personal attacks.
John Doran, editor, Independent Record "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:48 AM:
" wow...two very important issues that diazo and gfguy simply don't care about.
Diazo - "And all this tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff isn't worth anyone's time. But I can't resist asking: what's your point about Obamas birth certificate? That he wasn't born?"
First "write it off as conspiracy theory crap..." Then ignore the numerous stated reasons why his birth certificate is important, and come up with a completely pretentious reason instead..."he wasn't born?"
Obviously he was "born". But where? That is important...'cause our Constitution says so. Now if you want to admit that you don't care what the Constitution says...then we have another issue don't we...
It's already been evidenced that the Certificate on the Internet is not "valid"...inre...it is not a "copy" of any "original document". So why can't we "see" the original? What is so "secret" about someones birth certificate? We are simply asking to have an end put to the discussion in a "valid way"...not by simply writing it off as "conspiracy theory".
gfguy - "President-Elect Obama does not have the qualifications to drive a garbage truck, perform open heart surgery, or play ball for the Cubs. What difference does it make as to what clearance he could achieve on his own?"
The security of this Nation and the "secrets" that are kept from prying eyes abroad are at issue here. Not only does he not have a credible background of friends and acquaintences, he has already contacted "hammas" and promissed them that he would help them to create a Palestinian State. Now tell me that ain't gonna cause problems in the Middle East? We can't exactly go back and undo the creation of Israel...well maybe we could give them Oklahoma or something...He has such a "shady background" of contacts as to make "little black book" sound colorful.
But hey...it nice to be able to write off important issues as simply nonsense. "
Diazo - "And all this tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff isn't worth anyone's time. But I can't resist asking: what's your point about Obamas birth certificate? That he wasn't born?"
First "write it off as conspiracy theory crap..." Then ignore the numerous stated reasons why his birth certificate is important, and come up with a completely pretentious reason instead..."he wasn't born?"
Obviously he was "born". But where? That is important...'cause our Constitution says so. Now if you want to admit that you don't care what the Constitution says...then we have another issue don't we...
It's already been evidenced that the Certificate on the Internet is not "valid"...inre...it is not a "copy" of any "original document". So why can't we "see" the original? What is so "secret" about someones birth certificate? We are simply asking to have an end put to the discussion in a "valid way"...not by simply writing it off as "conspiracy theory".
gfguy - "President-Elect Obama does not have the qualifications to drive a garbage truck, perform open heart surgery, or play ball for the Cubs. What difference does it make as to what clearance he could achieve on his own?"
The security of this Nation and the "secrets" that are kept from prying eyes abroad are at issue here. Not only does he not have a credible background of friends and acquaintences, he has already contacted "hammas" and promissed them that he would help them to create a Palestinian State. Now tell me that ain't gonna cause problems in the Middle East? We can't exactly go back and undo the creation of Israel...well maybe we could give them Oklahoma or something...He has such a "shady background" of contacts as to make "little black book" sound colorful.
But hey...it nice to be able to write off important issues as simply nonsense. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:22 AM:
" Some of you less than history buffs may not know this but there were lots of people who wanted to proclaim George Washington as King of the United States of America. He didn't want to be a King. Recently on the interenet there was an article about who would be King right now had George decided to take the offer. So the notion is not entirely all my own. At least I'm not the only person who has thought about it. I'm not in the line of succession for this country, but there are several places in Europe that I could be...along with literally "tens of thousands" of other people. You see if you could (or had) traced your family line...most of you...may well find some Royalty in there somewhere. I just happen to have done it and found a lot in mine. A lot more than I actually put on my family tree, as I only focused on the Norwegian herritage in a straight line back, and did not add all the "cousins" that I could have. But it was somewhat common to get a King or Queen from a neighboring country for lines of succession back in those days. "
purple wrote on Dec 5, 2008 5:31 AM:
" "diazo"
If President Bush is the baffoon you and your ilk make him out to be, then what does that make John Kerry?
President Bush had a higher GPA than Kerry at the same college.
Are you implying that colleges provide a quality education? You are entitled to believe that the education system in this country [especially in this state] is head and shoulders better than those in other countries, but the proof is in "fact" that children in less developed nations score higher in MATH and SCIENCE, two fields of study which are the driving force behind technology advancements.
More and more about children whom have been "home schooled" are scoring hiring those those who attend public schools.
The taxpayers ARE NOT getting their moneies worth from the nations educators, despite their constantly whining and sniveling - give us more money and we will fix the education system. They've made that SAME demand for 30 years and states and the federal government have shoveled millions their way and the result is the education system keeps getting worse. "
If President Bush is the baffoon you and your ilk make him out to be, then what does that make John Kerry?
President Bush had a higher GPA than Kerry at the same college.
Are you implying that colleges provide a quality education? You are entitled to believe that the education system in this country [especially in this state] is head and shoulders better than those in other countries, but the proof is in "fact" that children in less developed nations score higher in MATH and SCIENCE, two fields of study which are the driving force behind technology advancements.
More and more about children whom have been "home schooled" are scoring hiring those those who attend public schools.
The taxpayers ARE NOT getting their moneies worth from the nations educators, despite their constantly whining and sniveling - give us more money and we will fix the education system. They've made that SAME demand for 30 years and states and the federal government have shoveled millions their way and the result is the education system keeps getting worse. "
diazo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:03 PM:
" Hakon,
Two points, then I'm done.
First, I am aware McCain was born in a military hospital in Panama. However, it's not as simple as you'd like to make it:
There is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone.
His campaign has refused to release his birth certificate.
There is a question as to whether the Canal Zone was considered legally to be part of the US when McCain was born.
A State Department manual says that U.S. military installations abroad cannot be considered "part of the United States" and "A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
And the actual definition of what constitutes being a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution has never been legally established.
Read about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html#
If this set of circumstances had applied to Obama, the Right would have raised holy hell. Lucky for McCain that Democrats aren't so petty.
Secondly, if you consider staunch Republican and William F. Buckley protege David Brooks to be a liberal, it's pretty clear where you fall on the political spectrum - way past the right end, out in the tinhatosphere. Oxygen seems to be thin out there, my liege. "
Two points, then I'm done.
First, I am aware McCain was born in a military hospital in Panama. However, it's not as simple as you'd like to make it:
There is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone.
His campaign has refused to release his birth certificate.
There is a question as to whether the Canal Zone was considered legally to be part of the US when McCain was born.
A State Department manual says that U.S. military installations abroad cannot be considered "part of the United States" and "A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
And the actual definition of what constitutes being a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution has never been legally established.
Read about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html#
If this set of circumstances had applied to Obama, the Right would have raised holy hell. Lucky for McCain that Democrats aren't so petty.
Secondly, if you consider staunch Republican and William F. Buckley protege David Brooks to be a liberal, it's pretty clear where you fall on the political spectrum - way past the right end, out in the tinhatosphere. Oxygen seems to be thin out there, my liege. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:39 PM:
" ematt - You make me laugh (not at you, but I'm sure with you) That page goes along with my family tree (which you may or may not have looked over). While you may tend to think that I claim superiority (on that page - I certainly haven't here) If you read it closely I haven't claimed superiority there either. I'm simply posing the notion of having a King (or Queen) as opposed to our current overtly corrupt system. I also note that the King or Queen could be any common man or woman duly elected by their peers...or...They could be decendants of the early Kings...such as myself. But most importantly they must be just...
I can't see an overt claim to anything in there.
While my tone here with the likes of diazo and gfguy and skooter may well have been "stern" it certainly wasn't uncalled for. These types of people don't understand how to play fair. They come in and blast those who they disagree with and then claim to be insulted when they get blasted back. They don't answer questions. They make unfounded accuzations and appear to be aloof from the fray that they commit.
No I have no regrets for any method I use against the likes of them. Republican or Democrat however you slice it. Fair is fair and unfair is unfair. I am civil and forward, but not rude and crude. I don't insult people just for the fun of it.
Talking sternly to people "who deserve it" is not insulting them. It is treating them as they have asked to be treated. If they don't like being talked to sternly maybe they need a "time out". "
I can't see an overt claim to anything in there.
While my tone here with the likes of diazo and gfguy and skooter may well have been "stern" it certainly wasn't uncalled for. These types of people don't understand how to play fair. They come in and blast those who they disagree with and then claim to be insulted when they get blasted back. They don't answer questions. They make unfounded accuzations and appear to be aloof from the fray that they commit.
No I have no regrets for any method I use against the likes of them. Republican or Democrat however you slice it. Fair is fair and unfair is unfair. I am civil and forward, but not rude and crude. I don't insult people just for the fun of it.
Talking sternly to people "who deserve it" is not insulting them. It is treating them as they have asked to be treated. If they don't like being talked to sternly maybe they need a "time out". "
ematt wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:07 PM:
" Hakon:
(re: Dec 4 2:35 PM)
On your comment "I have not made any claims of superiority"; one certainly gets that impression from the tone of your posts especially when combined with this find: "I hereby call for a return to Kings and Nobility. The rule of the just for the justice of all. But who would be these Kings? They could be any common man or woman duly elected by their peers to serve as King or Queen. They could be descendants of the Early Kings, such as myself. But most importantly they must be just or their rule will not bring justice to all." "
(re: Dec 4 2:35 PM)
On your comment "I have not made any claims of superiority"; one certainly gets that impression from the tone of your posts especially when combined with this find: "I hereby call for a return to Kings and Nobility. The rule of the just for the justice of all. But who would be these Kings? They could be any common man or woman duly elected by their peers to serve as King or Queen. They could be descendants of the Early Kings, such as myself. But most importantly they must be just or their rule will not bring justice to all." "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:00 PM:
" Since Mr Obama was the Law School graduate and Constitutional Law Lecturer...I'm glad you brought this up...Why is he against gun ownership? Why did he vote for "unconstitutional" laws in Illinois? Why did he vote to PUNISH those who use a gun in "self defense in their own home"?
If he was the Constitutional genius you claim he is then don't you think he would know what the Constitution says?
Have you ever read the Constitution?
"...the right to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed."
What doesn't he understand about those simple words?
Do you understand them? The Supreme Court does. "
If he was the Constitutional genius you claim he is then don't you think he would know what the Constitution says?
Have you ever read the Constitution?
"...the right to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed."
What doesn't he understand about those simple words?
Do you understand them? The Supreme Court does. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:46 PM:
" diazo - to enlighten you - McCain was born to US Citizens (both) at a US Military Hospital, on a US Military Base whereby under International Law it is US Territory/Property therefore no matter how you slice it John McCain is a US Citizen.
At least we "know" where he was born - for sure.
Can we say that about Mr Obama?
Due to the unanswered controversy - no.
Why won't they, can't they, simply answer it with "verifiable facts" (as you like to say).
Or doesn't it work that way?
Let me ask you this...does it matter to you where he was born?
Does it matter to you what the Constitution says about birth place? "
At least we "know" where he was born - for sure.
Can we say that about Mr Obama?
Due to the unanswered controversy - no.
Why won't they, can't they, simply answer it with "verifiable facts" (as you like to say).
Or doesn't it work that way?
Let me ask you this...does it matter to you where he was born?
Does it matter to you what the Constitution says about birth place? "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:35 PM:
" http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/marxist_director_of_intercultural_affairs_at_pepperdine_university_denies_s/
So...how many other colleges have been taken over by Marxists?
How many of you understand what Mr Obama is really all about?
Read the article...if you dare. Of course it's not a "liberal democrat" article...it's just from Pepperdine University a once great bastion of college education.
What was that Amendment???
Oh yea...The First Amendment...FREEDOM OF SPEACH and all that crap...it seems it's only free for those who are trying to change this country into a socialist/marxist union. "
So...how many other colleges have been taken over by Marxists?
How many of you understand what Mr Obama is really all about?
Read the article...if you dare. Of course it's not a "liberal democrat" article...it's just from Pepperdine University a once great bastion of college education.
What was that Amendment???
Oh yea...The First Amendment...FREEDOM OF SPEACH and all that crap...it seems it's only free for those who are trying to change this country into a socialist/marxist union. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:31 PM:
" diazo - I did note a few posts ago that your very first post was (relatively) civil. Although - you did hurl a few generalized accuzations and a few insults in it.
It also only "parrots" liberal media pundits (you even paraphrase one - David Brooks), so your claim that all "we" do is mimmick Rush or Hannity falls flat since that is all you are doing. You're not offering your "opinion" based upon substantial research into several media (or other outlets) as you are trying to infer that is what "we" should be doing...instead of relying on Rush and Hannity.
So your "sources" are better because...?
The liberal "masses" have been so brainwashed by the mass media they really have no will of their own left. I'm a parrot...polly wanna cracker...Again...
I make no claim to one side or the other...so in this particular scenario it is I who have the broadest range of input. Why? Because I do read "both sides". That's why I know that there is a lot missing from the liberal media side of the story. As there is stuff that the conservative side is not telling...they have tended to leave out the touchy feely good stuff that "you" all want to hear about Mr Obama and friends. Instead they tell "the dirt".
Why? Because it is there. To deny that it is there only proves that you don't want to "debate" or "discuss" the issues. You're comfortable with what you've been spoon fed from the mass media.
So again your facts (from your first post) have left a lot out of the equation. You "know that". You just don't want to admit there is "dirt" behind the people he has chosen.
You don't want to admit he has already broken every promiss he made during his campaign.
We all "have to wait" to see what happens next, to be sure. But to deny that nothing has happened so far, or deny that nothing has been shady in his past...is simply stupid.
That's what gets the conservatives on this board upset. That you can seemingly deny the obvious with impunity.
Further, I haven't called anyone "names". I haven't made any "wild accuzations". I have not made any claims of superiority. But you have.
And you end with yet another jab and no real substance to your post.
What name calling have I done?
What wild accuzations have I made?
What claim of superiority have I made.
Do you want to discuss those things? You haven't wanted to discuss anything put before you yet. Are you afraid of the outcome?
Are you more comfortable just hurling insults? "
It also only "parrots" liberal media pundits (you even paraphrase one - David Brooks), so your claim that all "we" do is mimmick Rush or Hannity falls flat since that is all you are doing. You're not offering your "opinion" based upon substantial research into several media (or other outlets) as you are trying to infer that is what "we" should be doing...instead of relying on Rush and Hannity.
So your "sources" are better because...?
The liberal "masses" have been so brainwashed by the mass media they really have no will of their own left. I'm a parrot...polly wanna cracker...Again...
I make no claim to one side or the other...so in this particular scenario it is I who have the broadest range of input. Why? Because I do read "both sides". That's why I know that there is a lot missing from the liberal media side of the story. As there is stuff that the conservative side is not telling...they have tended to leave out the touchy feely good stuff that "you" all want to hear about Mr Obama and friends. Instead they tell "the dirt".
Why? Because it is there. To deny that it is there only proves that you don't want to "debate" or "discuss" the issues. You're comfortable with what you've been spoon fed from the mass media.
So again your facts (from your first post) have left a lot out of the equation. You "know that". You just don't want to admit there is "dirt" behind the people he has chosen.
You don't want to admit he has already broken every promiss he made during his campaign.
We all "have to wait" to see what happens next, to be sure. But to deny that nothing has happened so far, or deny that nothing has been shady in his past...is simply stupid.
That's what gets the conservatives on this board upset. That you can seemingly deny the obvious with impunity.
Further, I haven't called anyone "names". I haven't made any "wild accuzations". I have not made any claims of superiority. But you have.
And you end with yet another jab and no real substance to your post.
What name calling have I done?
What wild accuzations have I made?
What claim of superiority have I made.
Do you want to discuss those things? You haven't wanted to discuss anything put before you yet. Are you afraid of the outcome?
Are you more comfortable just hurling insults? "
diazo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:34 PM:
" Look, Hakon, I'm going to make this short:
Obama got his B.A. from Columbia and studied law at Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a lecturer on constitutional law at the Unviersity of Chicago. Stupid, incompetent people do not get into these schools (unless they are a legacy like, say, George W Bush) and they sure don't become president of the Harvard Law Review. As a constitutional scholar, Obama is certainly more qualified for the White House than the current resident, whose knowledge of the Constitution is limited to how to destroy it.
John McCain was born in Panama; if liberals behaved like conservatives they could've had a fit about that, but we instead chose to focus on real issues.
As far as Reverend Wright goes, the media had a field day with this during the primaries. Personally, I doubt you would find a black preacher in South Chicago who hasn't expressed frustration with the situation of African Americans in this country. It doesn't bother me; and it apparently didn't bother the majority of Americans who voted for Obama. "
Obama got his B.A. from Columbia and studied law at Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a lecturer on constitutional law at the Unviersity of Chicago. Stupid, incompetent people do not get into these schools (unless they are a legacy like, say, George W Bush) and they sure don't become president of the Harvard Law Review. As a constitutional scholar, Obama is certainly more qualified for the White House than the current resident, whose knowledge of the Constitution is limited to how to destroy it.
John McCain was born in Panama; if liberals behaved like conservatives they could've had a fit about that, but we instead chose to focus on real issues.
As far as Reverend Wright goes, the media had a field day with this during the primaries. Personally, I doubt you would find a black preacher in South Chicago who hasn't expressed frustration with the situation of African Americans in this country. It doesn't bother me; and it apparently didn't bother the majority of Americans who voted for Obama. "
gfguy wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:16 PM:
" Hakon - I'm just about bored with this so I offer el fin. (To JD's delight.) Take it or leave it.
"So "we" type 90 miles an hour and miss a few things. No biggie."
So it's no biggie for you to make simple spelling mistakes but for someone else to make a quotation error (according to you) is so heinous as to be part of you extensive tirade trying to lambaste me. Gotcha.
"You and diazo have not answered to any of the "issues" including the original posters. So please quit trying to say you have."
Please demonstrate where I proclaimed to have answered the original poster. I never did and have not portrayed such in any way, shape, or form. I'm simply addressing your irrelevant argument.
"All you've done is insult people, and that's not a broad generalization."
What I've done is insult YOUR snobbish and ostentatious demeanor. No people in there, just you. So I guess yours is a broad generalization after all.
"My bringing up my security clearance and the probability that Mr Obama would not qualify for a similar type of clearance "created" it's own topic which is relevant to the major topic...that being Mr Obama and his qualifications to be President."
President-Elect Obama does not have the qualifications to drive a garbage truck, perform open heart surgery, or play ball for the Cubs. What difference does it make as to what clearance he could achieve on his own? He is days away from becoming the President and will have clearance to just about whatever he wants. It's a moot point, which means you put forth the argument to puff yourself up to impress people on this Internet you love so much.
"Games do not make discussions."
The makers of Trivial Pursuit and Scene-It beg to differ. "
"So "we" type 90 miles an hour and miss a few things. No biggie."
So it's no biggie for you to make simple spelling mistakes but for someone else to make a quotation error (according to you) is so heinous as to be part of you extensive tirade trying to lambaste me. Gotcha.
"You and diazo have not answered to any of the "issues" including the original posters. So please quit trying to say you have."
Please demonstrate where I proclaimed to have answered the original poster. I never did and have not portrayed such in any way, shape, or form. I'm simply addressing your irrelevant argument.
"All you've done is insult people, and that's not a broad generalization."
What I've done is insult YOUR snobbish and ostentatious demeanor. No people in there, just you. So I guess yours is a broad generalization after all.
"My bringing up my security clearance and the probability that Mr Obama would not qualify for a similar type of clearance "created" it's own topic which is relevant to the major topic...that being Mr Obama and his qualifications to be President."
President-Elect Obama does not have the qualifications to drive a garbage truck, perform open heart surgery, or play ball for the Cubs. What difference does it make as to what clearance he could achieve on his own? He is days away from becoming the President and will have clearance to just about whatever he wants. It's a moot point, which means you put forth the argument to puff yourself up to impress people on this Internet you love so much.
"Games do not make discussions."
The makers of Trivial Pursuit and Scene-It beg to differ. "
ematt wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:35 AM:
" Hakon-
(re: Dec 4 10:12 AM)
No "stumbling" required. As I commented previously, I am merely a humble tax paying citizen who can perform a Google search. "
(re: Dec 4 10:12 AM)
No "stumbling" required. As I commented previously, I am merely a humble tax paying citizen who can perform a Google search. "
diazo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:32 AM:
" Hakon, contrary to your assertion, my first post included fact-based responses to the issues originally raised on this thread. But all you have done in response to anyone here who disagrees with you is call names, make wild accusations, and puff yourself up with grandiose claims of superiority. So pardon me if I and others have been poking fun at those tendencies. You just make it so darn easy. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:32 AM:
" Yet another avoidance of talking about the issues from diazo. You don't need to talk about "issues" because I'm presumptuous and arrogant. (and you're not)
Character assassination "avoids issues". Do you get it yet? You continue to avoid issues.
For you not "pretending to be a computer expert" (or internet expert) you sure had a hand in the "concern troll" issue didn't you? That is an internet thing from waaaaay back. Only "geeks" would bring it up in normal conversation. (oops there I go again being presumptuous)
Note: I did mention the "delay" of his birth certificate as having a "plausible" reason. Some people even go to the extreme of NOT naming their child in the Hospital to avoid having an SSN assigned to them.
But - the continued denial of "any issue" simply because you allow yourself to write them off as "conspiracy theory garbage" does not get to an answer...does it. Oh, it's not worth even discussing, 'cause you say so.
Civil discussion does not happen when the other side refuses to "discuss" and simply writes off any issue put forth as nonsense.
Let's try this then...
You "claim"
1. He's intelligent (based on what?)
2. He's qualified (based on what?)
3. His choices for his "people" are okay (based on what?)
You have been asked to support your claims. Is that discussable?
Can you do that without insulting me?
Without pretending I'm being arrogant and presumptuous?
All you have been doing is being removed, distant, arrogant, presumptuous, condescending...and avoiding all attempts at discussion of any topic simply because you don't like the topic, or the person raising the question.
To say that none of the issues surrounding Mr Obama are "relevant" is a complete denial that there are any issues.
Tony Rezko convicted on several accounts of fraud and bribery...and Mr Obama got a "sweet land deal"...
Let's not even go into the "church thing"...freedom of religion and all that. So the Pastor is a little wacked.
or the interview with Stephanopolis where he did a freudian slip...my Muslim faith...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I
You've got to be kidding?
You really want us to believe that there are no "issues" to discuss?
You're showing how pathetic you are.
Of course "Bush supporters" do exactly the same thing when confronted about "their man". "
Character assassination "avoids issues". Do you get it yet? You continue to avoid issues.
For you not "pretending to be a computer expert" (or internet expert) you sure had a hand in the "concern troll" issue didn't you? That is an internet thing from waaaaay back. Only "geeks" would bring it up in normal conversation. (oops there I go again being presumptuous)
Note: I did mention the "delay" of his birth certificate as having a "plausible" reason. Some people even go to the extreme of NOT naming their child in the Hospital to avoid having an SSN assigned to them.
But - the continued denial of "any issue" simply because you allow yourself to write them off as "conspiracy theory garbage" does not get to an answer...does it. Oh, it's not worth even discussing, 'cause you say so.
Civil discussion does not happen when the other side refuses to "discuss" and simply writes off any issue put forth as nonsense.
Let's try this then...
You "claim"
1. He's intelligent (based on what?)
2. He's qualified (based on what?)
3. His choices for his "people" are okay (based on what?)
You have been asked to support your claims. Is that discussable?
Can you do that without insulting me?
Without pretending I'm being arrogant and presumptuous?
All you have been doing is being removed, distant, arrogant, presumptuous, condescending...and avoiding all attempts at discussion of any topic simply because you don't like the topic, or the person raising the question.
To say that none of the issues surrounding Mr Obama are "relevant" is a complete denial that there are any issues.
Tony Rezko convicted on several accounts of fraud and bribery...and Mr Obama got a "sweet land deal"...
Let's not even go into the "church thing"...freedom of religion and all that. So the Pastor is a little wacked.
or the interview with Stephanopolis where he did a freudian slip...my Muslim faith...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I
You've got to be kidding?
You really want us to believe that there are no "issues" to discuss?
You're showing how pathetic you are.
Of course "Bush supporters" do exactly the same thing when confronted about "their man". "
purple wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:10 AM:
" "diazo"
Evidently you, by choice or by ignorance, haven't been paying attention to news sources other than liberals ones.
There is a question of BO's "legal" right to be the POTUS. If he is not a "natural born" citizen of this country he is ineligible to be the POTUS just like Arnold Schwartzenager isn't because he was born in Germany.
If BO has nothing to hide, why is there a such a crazed frenzy by democrats and liberals to NOT want to investigate his citizenship [or lack thereof] to put an end to all of the speculation?
What do we really know about BO? The media has bent over backwards, sideways, and everywhich other way to NOT conduct a thorough investigation of whom he really is. "
Evidently you, by choice or by ignorance, haven't been paying attention to news sources other than liberals ones.
There is a question of BO's "legal" right to be the POTUS. If he is not a "natural born" citizen of this country he is ineligible to be the POTUS just like Arnold Schwartzenager isn't because he was born in Germany.
If BO has nothing to hide, why is there a such a crazed frenzy by democrats and liberals to NOT want to investigate his citizenship [or lack thereof] to put an end to all of the speculation?
What do we really know about BO? The media has bent over backwards, sideways, and everywhich other way to NOT conduct a thorough investigation of whom he really is. "
diazo wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:24 AM:
" Hakon, I don't even know where to begin. Your presumptuousness and arrogance don't make civil discussion possible. gfguys last post expresses how you are coming off here much better than I can.
I will add that you don't know a thing about me and I would appreciate it if you would stop presuming to. I don't pretend to be a computer expert. And I dont care if you are a computer expert; its not relevant to anything being discussed here. Neither are your supposed security clearances.
And all this tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff isn't worth anyone's time. But I can't resist asking: what's your point about Obamas birth certificate? That he wasn't born? And as a matter of fact, my second son's birth certificate wasn't issued until 3 days after he was born because his mother and I couldn't agree on a name until the day we were discharged from the hospital. So I don't find a delay in of a few days in the issuance of Obama's birth certificate to be evidence of some conspiracy, if there was such a delay. Oooh, but maybe I'm part of the conspiracy! You'd better watch out! The I-R's covert blogging army is everywhere. "
I will add that you don't know a thing about me and I would appreciate it if you would stop presuming to. I don't pretend to be a computer expert. And I dont care if you are a computer expert; its not relevant to anything being discussed here. Neither are your supposed security clearances.
And all this tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff isn't worth anyone's time. But I can't resist asking: what's your point about Obamas birth certificate? That he wasn't born? And as a matter of fact, my second son's birth certificate wasn't issued until 3 days after he was born because his mother and I couldn't agree on a name until the day we were discharged from the hospital. So I don't find a delay in of a few days in the issuance of Obama's birth certificate to be evidence of some conspiracy, if there was such a delay. Oooh, but maybe I'm part of the conspiracy! You'd better watch out! The I-R's covert blogging army is everywhere. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:12 AM:
" ematt - sounds like you may have stumbled upon my web page. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:09 AM:
" gfguy - it would be neat if'n the IR web page editor had a spell checker in it. But hey who cares. The internet is rife with bastardized English punctuation and grammar. And it gets worse every year/month/day/hour/etc. So "we" type 90 miles an hour and miss a few things. No biggie.
As for your claim that I make "broad generalizations" about liberal democrats...um gee...isn't that a broad generalization on your part? Sure it is. Get over it. Who does it hurt...umm nobody. Just by making the "claim" you get to "avoid" the issue. It's a free ride 'cause he called me a name...OMG. Is it that easy to avoid an issue? You and diazo have not answered to any of the "issues" including the original posters. So please quit trying to say you have.
Let's not pretend that you and diazo have not proclaimed any holier than thou type of attitudes. Let's not pretend that you and diazo like to play games and make broad generalizations and accuzations all the while proclaiming your innocense, and incense at all the broad generalizations and accuzations.
As for "my security clearance" not having any relevance to the topic at hand...since when have "you" been discussing the topic at hand? That would be the topics that Tillie brought up. Which you haven't commented on. All you've done is insult people, and that's not a broad generalization.
You have also evidenced to the group that you do not grasp the topics at hand very well. As you do not understand what my security clearance issue was about. It wasn't about me.
My bringing up my security clearance and the probability that Mr Obama would not qualify for a similar type of clearance "created" it's own topic which is relevant to the major topic...that being Mr Obama and his qualifications to be President.
But we're not supposed to care about those topics. So we can't discuss them with any of you holier than thou liberal democrats.
Games do not make discussions. You and diazo continue to play your game and pretend hurtful dismay towards my comments all the while avoiding talking about any of the real issues.
Bravo. "
As for your claim that I make "broad generalizations" about liberal democrats...um gee...isn't that a broad generalization on your part? Sure it is. Get over it. Who does it hurt...umm nobody. Just by making the "claim" you get to "avoid" the issue. It's a free ride 'cause he called me a name...OMG. Is it that easy to avoid an issue? You and diazo have not answered to any of the "issues" including the original posters. So please quit trying to say you have.
Let's not pretend that you and diazo have not proclaimed any holier than thou type of attitudes. Let's not pretend that you and diazo like to play games and make broad generalizations and accuzations all the while proclaiming your innocense, and incense at all the broad generalizations and accuzations.
As for "my security clearance" not having any relevance to the topic at hand...since when have "you" been discussing the topic at hand? That would be the topics that Tillie brought up. Which you haven't commented on. All you've done is insult people, and that's not a broad generalization.
You have also evidenced to the group that you do not grasp the topics at hand very well. As you do not understand what my security clearance issue was about. It wasn't about me.
My bringing up my security clearance and the probability that Mr Obama would not qualify for a similar type of clearance "created" it's own topic which is relevant to the major topic...that being Mr Obama and his qualifications to be President.
But we're not supposed to care about those topics. So we can't discuss them with any of you holier than thou liberal democrats.
Games do not make discussions. You and diazo continue to play your game and pretend hurtful dismay towards my comments all the while avoiding talking about any of the real issues.
Bravo. "
ematt wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:46 AM:
" Hakon-
(re: Dec 4, 8:28 AM)
Wow! That's quite the post, some real tin hat stuff there. Well, it's hard to argue with the Man who would be King. "
(re: Dec 4, 8:28 AM)
Wow! That's quite the post, some real tin hat stuff there. Well, it's hard to argue with the Man who would be King. "
gfguy wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:57 AM:
" Hakon, I am a Liberal Democrat and I take a great deal of pride in that fact. You were calling me one, so thanks, but you did not just stop at that. You just have to get digs in at Liberals and Democrats by making broad generalizations in just about every post you make on the IR, and that is what I take exception with (not to mention the self-aggrandizement and holier-than-thou attitude that you express.)
For someone criticizing my use of quotes and literacy, you sure have a difficult time spelling, Hakon. What exactly is a "rebuplican?" Get off your high horse already. Also, this might seem like an obvious question, but if I couldn't read, why do you bother to respond?
Perhaps you could grasp this. I'm not trying to win a debate. I was pointing out that your "security clearance" has no relevance to the topic at hand and screams of the "look at me, look at me" attitude that young children possess when trying to get their parents' attention. We get it. You think you are important. Let's move on. "
For someone criticizing my use of quotes and literacy, you sure have a difficult time spelling, Hakon. What exactly is a "rebuplican?" Get off your high horse already. Also, this might seem like an obvious question, but if I couldn't read, why do you bother to respond?
Perhaps you could grasp this. I'm not trying to win a debate. I was pointing out that your "security clearance" has no relevance to the topic at hand and screams of the "look at me, look at me" attitude that young children possess when trying to get their parents' attention. We get it. You think you are important. Let's move on. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:28 AM:
" diazo - to your "issues" which you aver to..."a competent, intelligent person elected resident..."
What qualifications does he have?
1. He was a community planner. Is that like Neighborhood Watch Commander in Chief or what? Neighborhood Cleanliness Monitor? I have a friend who lives out in East Helena in one of those communities where they "vote" each week to see who has the nicest looking yard.
2. ...oh yea he got elected Senator by getting his opponent "removed". Then immediately began his run for President. What did he do as a Senator? Oh yea...he immediately began to run for President...Does that qualify as OJT?
3. Have you "seen" any of his "college" papers? Didn't think so. Why? They're sealed? Why? So how do you know he's intelligent? Oh yea...he got elected to public office...by hook or by crook. Then immediately began his run for President.
4. His birth certificate? Not even a "copy" of the original one that was issued "4 days after he was born". Now if'n you and your wife (if you have one) had a child at St Petes would it take 4 days to get the birth certificate issued? No? Hmmm. Oh maybe they hadn't decided on a "name" for the little guy yet. As for the certificate itself, now being an internet freak as you are...you "know" (I'm assuming here you've seen it) that the "font" it uses didn't exist back then in the dark ages. All documents were "typed" not "printed". Looks to be the Arial font if I'm not mistaken. Now I know the Administrator of the Hospital has come out and said she's seen the "real document"...but that doesn't explain why it took 4 days to get issued. It doesn't explain why the Hospital doesn't have any admission records for "mommy". Or how she happened to be in Kenya...on the day he was born.
Then there are his "pals"...oh yea...we're not supposed to care about them either.
All that aside...do you feel like "discussing" anything...
Like maybe how he is going to help the Palestinians create a Palestinian State? Now granted...the "creation" of Israel itself back in 1947 was done rather arbitrarily. So they may be upset about that...as well. "
What qualifications does he have?
1. He was a community planner. Is that like Neighborhood Watch Commander in Chief or what? Neighborhood Cleanliness Monitor? I have a friend who lives out in East Helena in one of those communities where they "vote" each week to see who has the nicest looking yard.
2. ...oh yea he got elected Senator by getting his opponent "removed". Then immediately began his run for President. What did he do as a Senator? Oh yea...he immediately began to run for President...Does that qualify as OJT?
3. Have you "seen" any of his "college" papers? Didn't think so. Why? They're sealed? Why? So how do you know he's intelligent? Oh yea...he got elected to public office...by hook or by crook. Then immediately began his run for President.
4. His birth certificate? Not even a "copy" of the original one that was issued "4 days after he was born". Now if'n you and your wife (if you have one) had a child at St Petes would it take 4 days to get the birth certificate issued? No? Hmmm. Oh maybe they hadn't decided on a "name" for the little guy yet. As for the certificate itself, now being an internet freak as you are...you "know" (I'm assuming here you've seen it) that the "font" it uses didn't exist back then in the dark ages. All documents were "typed" not "printed". Looks to be the Arial font if I'm not mistaken. Now I know the Administrator of the Hospital has come out and said she's seen the "real document"...but that doesn't explain why it took 4 days to get issued. It doesn't explain why the Hospital doesn't have any admission records for "mommy". Or how she happened to be in Kenya...on the day he was born.
Then there are his "pals"...oh yea...we're not supposed to care about them either.
All that aside...do you feel like "discussing" anything...
Like maybe how he is going to help the Palestinians create a Palestinian State? Now granted...the "creation" of Israel itself back in 1947 was done rather arbitrarily. So they may be upset about that...as well. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:54 AM:
" diazo - your "concern troll" would only be that to someone who doesn't "know" that it is only another lame attempt at an insult. Get over yourself. You net freaks are just that. You claim to be so superior to all else, all the while you simply show your ignorance of the real world as you live in your imaginary one. I too have been on the internet for a long time. In fact just after Al Gore invented it I got my first internet account, which I still have. I was here before there were pictures/sound/movies all the fun stuff there is to do now. Back when 300 baud was "fast". I was programming computers before the PC had even been invented. Long before Bill Gates stole Windows. I've seen many internet freaks over the years who claim superior intellect, but really have none. If you want to stay in that category the choice is yours. Just keep pretending that no issues have been put on the table. As I said before what verifiable facts have "you" put into any of this thread?
Oh yea...that you are the concern troller...I figured that out a while ago also. I was just waiting for you to come clean. You see the world is a nicer place when people actually tell the truth. Doesn't it make you feel better about yourself?
But again, concern trolling only "works" on people who don't understand it for what it is. Just another lame insult in an attempt to play superior internet freak.
Try discussing the issues and join the real world. Quit playing internet games. It doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look foolish. "
Oh yea...that you are the concern troller...I figured that out a while ago also. I was just waiting for you to come clean. You see the world is a nicer place when people actually tell the truth. Doesn't it make you feel better about yourself?
But again, concern trolling only "works" on people who don't understand it for what it is. Just another lame insult in an attempt to play superior internet freak.
Try discussing the issues and join the real world. Quit playing internet games. It doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look foolish. "
purple wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:07 AM:
" Imagine if the mainstream [aka liberal] media hadn't been fawning all over obama and had done an in-depth investigation into him like they did to Sarah Palin, Joe The Plumber, and Cindy McCain.
Is it likely many of them would have voted for obama if the media had found out and reported that obama IS NOT what everyone claims he is? I think not. "
Is it likely many of them would have voted for obama if the media had found out and reported that obama IS NOT what everyone claims he is? I think not. "
MTRICH wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:21 PM:
" oops...just read my last post and noticed the syntax errors in the last few lines...sorry about that folks. "
diazo wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:49 PM:
" HankonMontag, the last line in my previous post was an example of a concern troll.
It's pretty funny that you can make a comment like "liberal democrats missed all the issues and can't read" while simultaneously claiming that you are not hurling unsubstantiated insults. Liberal democrats are deeply concerned about the issues; that's why we worked so hard to get a competent, intelligent person elected president to help get us out of this hole. Again, if you want to talk about any actual issues, this would be a great time to begin.
BTW, my 11:13 post refers to the last statement of your 8:29 post, not to your 10:29 claim to be the purveyor Of truth, which had not been posted yet. But assuming that you are indeed the Purveyor of Truth, and you were to shake hands with Rush Limbaugh, who similarly modestly claims to be the Truth Detector, would the universe implode like some kind of matter / antimatter collision? Just wondering. "
It's pretty funny that you can make a comment like "liberal democrats missed all the issues and can't read" while simultaneously claiming that you are not hurling unsubstantiated insults. Liberal democrats are deeply concerned about the issues; that's why we worked so hard to get a competent, intelligent person elected president to help get us out of this hole. Again, if you want to talk about any actual issues, this would be a great time to begin.
BTW, my 11:13 post refers to the last statement of your 8:29 post, not to your 10:29 claim to be the purveyor Of truth, which had not been posted yet. But assuming that you are indeed the Purveyor of Truth, and you were to shake hands with Rush Limbaugh, who similarly modestly claims to be the Truth Detector, would the universe implode like some kind of matter / antimatter collision? Just wondering. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 3, 2008 3:25 PM:
" Diazo - I can't find any posts here that fit your description (which I already knew of BTW) of concern trolling. Don't see anyone here claiming to be on one side as a "concerned" member but really is on the other side. Try again. No one has offered a poisioned apple. Try again. As for looking foolish, another lame attempt at insults from you. Try again. And try not to look foolish doing it.
gfguy - Your entry into this "debate" was nothing less than tongue in cheek insults. Pot-kettle-black. You know the routine. I say "you don't really seem to care..." use correct quotes when possible it makes it then seem like you can actually read (oops there I go again...to paraphrase your lame attempts at insults). BTW if your attempts at insults were "calling me on any issue I put forth..." how about debating the issue instead of simply hurling insults? Now there's a thought.
The two of you have missed (or ignored) all the points entirely. If you act like a liberal-democrat then why act insulted for being called one? Do you have an issue with your own beliefs?
The brim is over flowing for the both of you inre to your "version" of reality. You seem to think that you can win by simply pretending that you've committed no errors. gfguy has done nothing but hurl insults while diazo started out nicely but then opted for "higher moral ground" feigning to be holier than thou by asertion of pretense.
I will admit that by in large diazo has been more civil. Save for the "acronym post". That was a little over the top...but funny.
You see, you can call me all the names you want. I know the truth of who I am and what I belive in. Sticks and stones.
You need to learn to debate, and forgo the insults yourselves. Liberal democrats are just that - liberal democrats. As Conservative Republicans are exactly the same - conservative rebuplicans. It is no insult to either to call them that. They be what they be...
My claim (aimed toward the both of you) that liberal democrats missed all the issues and can't read...is quite true.
If you can't take being called a liberal democrat then don't act like one. "
gfguy - Your entry into this "debate" was nothing less than tongue in cheek insults. Pot-kettle-black. You know the routine. I say "you don't really seem to care..." use correct quotes when possible it makes it then seem like you can actually read (oops there I go again...to paraphrase your lame attempts at insults). BTW if your attempts at insults were "calling me on any issue I put forth..." how about debating the issue instead of simply hurling insults? Now there's a thought.
The two of you have missed (or ignored) all the points entirely. If you act like a liberal-democrat then why act insulted for being called one? Do you have an issue with your own beliefs?
The brim is over flowing for the both of you inre to your "version" of reality. You seem to think that you can win by simply pretending that you've committed no errors. gfguy has done nothing but hurl insults while diazo started out nicely but then opted for "higher moral ground" feigning to be holier than thou by asertion of pretense.
I will admit that by in large diazo has been more civil. Save for the "acronym post". That was a little over the top...but funny.
You see, you can call me all the names you want. I know the truth of who I am and what I belive in. Sticks and stones.
You need to learn to debate, and forgo the insults yourselves. Liberal democrats are just that - liberal democrats. As Conservative Republicans are exactly the same - conservative rebuplicans. It is no insult to either to call them that. They be what they be...
My claim (aimed toward the both of you) that liberal democrats missed all the issues and can't read...is quite true.
If you can't take being called a liberal democrat then don't act like one. "
diazo wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:05 PM:
" By the way, Hakon, since you've brought it up again, skooter was correct in his use of the term "concern trolling". urbandictionary.com lists several definitions for the term which fit with skooter's, such as: "In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with 'concerns'."
The Hill defined concern trolling as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient."
I only mention this, Hakon, because I would like to help you to not look foolish. "
The Hill defined concern trolling as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient."
I only mention this, Hakon, because I would like to help you to not look foolish. "
gfguy wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:33 AM:
" Hakon, you say I don't care about anything and that I can't read, and you speak of not going down the exaggeration isle. You hurl tongue in cheek insults at Liberals and Democrats "I'm very glad that all of the Democrats and Liberals on this board were able to identify the important issues of these posts. Without their knowledge our Nation would surely be lost," and then attempt to take the moral high ground when someone calls you on it. Then, when more than one person address it, you cry out "Conspiracy, conspiracy. The IR is picking on me."
I never called you a Democrat or Republican. I never said that issues dealing with Obama were off-limits or non-issues. I've never worked for the IR. You version of the truth is certainly brimming with falsehoods. "
I never called you a Democrat or Republican. I never said that issues dealing with Obama were off-limits or non-issues. I've never worked for the IR. You version of the truth is certainly brimming with falsehoods. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:29 AM:
" If hearing the truth causes you to think that you have been insulted, then it is you that has the problem. Not the purveyor of truth. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:29 AM:
" gfguy and diazo certainly need to learn how to read. They also both attribute things to me that I simply did not do. Let's not even go down the exageration isle. Both of these diehard liberal/democrats feign denial of real issues put before them. If it has to do with Mr Obama it simply can't be a real issue. Kind of like how the diehard republican/conservatives treat issues about Bush. If either of these two had paid any attention to any of my posts they would know that I do not profess to be either Democrat or Republicn. I attack both sides of the isle when it is called for.
As for the specifics in this latest round from diazo - several more insults? I guess you can't count too well. Easily disproven assertions about the media not reporting on Mr Obamas' Cabinet choices? That's not what I claimed. They are "reporting" who he is choosing. They are NOT reporting the "full" background of those people. Only the touchy feely good stuff you all want to hear. Comparing the media to Pravda? I guess you don't really pay attention to how the media "reports" anything of political value. The openly voracious attitude of the media towards Mr Obama has not been witnessed in this country since the days of JFK. Some "commentators" literally were in tears simply trying to report mundane stories during the election cycle. Did I support the "Bush push" to the war in Iraq? No. And I still don't. I do however support any person that has the guts to fight and die for their country. It's just sad when the war is for a provably wrong cause.
Skooter is the person who started the "concern trolling" issue, not me. I simply pointed out that skooters use of it was incorrect.
I did not suggest that I should be (or want to be) President. That is your opinion of what I said. I simply offered more "provable information" as to the lack of credibility Mr Obama actually has. I don't make the rules about who or how someone can get a security clearance.
How many verifiable "facts" have you and skooter and gfguy put into "any" of this thread?
All of my posts in this thread have been "civil" and I have recieved nothing but insults from the likes of you. It is you who needs to change their tone. So don't pretend that all of a sudden I have come clean and now you can talk to me. I have been civil, you haven't. The below "posts" speak for themselves. You seem to forget that everyone can see these posts so it is obvious who is telling the truth and who isn't. "
As for the specifics in this latest round from diazo - several more insults? I guess you can't count too well. Easily disproven assertions about the media not reporting on Mr Obamas' Cabinet choices? That's not what I claimed. They are "reporting" who he is choosing. They are NOT reporting the "full" background of those people. Only the touchy feely good stuff you all want to hear. Comparing the media to Pravda? I guess you don't really pay attention to how the media "reports" anything of political value. The openly voracious attitude of the media towards Mr Obama has not been witnessed in this country since the days of JFK. Some "commentators" literally were in tears simply trying to report mundane stories during the election cycle. Did I support the "Bush push" to the war in Iraq? No. And I still don't. I do however support any person that has the guts to fight and die for their country. It's just sad when the war is for a provably wrong cause.
Skooter is the person who started the "concern trolling" issue, not me. I simply pointed out that skooters use of it was incorrect.
I did not suggest that I should be (or want to be) President. That is your opinion of what I said. I simply offered more "provable information" as to the lack of credibility Mr Obama actually has. I don't make the rules about who or how someone can get a security clearance.
How many verifiable "facts" have you and skooter and gfguy put into "any" of this thread?
All of my posts in this thread have been "civil" and I have recieved nothing but insults from the likes of you. It is you who needs to change their tone. So don't pretend that all of a sudden I have come clean and now you can talk to me. I have been civil, you haven't. The below "posts" speak for themselves. You seem to forget that everyone can see these posts so it is obvious who is telling the truth and who isn't. "
gfguy wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:49 PM:
" Hakon, how many different ways can you come up with to say that you are superior (morally, philosophically, politically, etc.) to everyone else? I do have things I care about, just like you. The difference is that I'm not out trying to impress people on the comments section of the IR by stating my security credentials and bashing Obama.
And by the by, how exactly does making broad generalizations about Democrats and Liberals, with no evidence to support such statements, amount to any one's interpretation of "facts and reason?"
Party on Wayne.
Ah darn it. I did it again. "
And by the by, how exactly does making broad generalizations about Democrats and Liberals, with no evidence to support such statements, amount to any one's interpretation of "facts and reason?"
Party on Wayne.
Ah darn it. I did it again. "
diazo wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:32 PM:
" HakonMontag, I applaud your newfound commitment to taking the high road and disavowing the politics of personal destruction, even though you offered several more insults during the course of your sermon.
But before you get too much holier than us liberals, let's remember how this thread began - with a letter misstating Obama's positions while accusing his supporters of not paying attention to issues. (McCain supporters admittedly enjoyed a veritable feast of issues, what with McCain having been on both sides of so many of them.) You first weighed in to make easily disproven assertions that the media has not been reporting on Obama's cabinet choices, then equated the media with Pravda. Were you calling the media Pravda when they were marching in lockstep behind Bush to launch his illegal war in Iraq?
Next, your soul mates Patriot and Purple trotted out the trusty "socialist" and "messiah" attacks. Skooter offered plenty of factual rebuttals, to which you offered some fever-dream rant about concern-trolling, internetism phobia and security clearance acronyms. Then you seemed to suggest that you are more qualified to be President than the Constitutional lawyer who was elected in a landslide, because you give better background check. If only you had been running.
Anyway, thats all in the past. Now that we are all freshly civilized, if you would care to introduce some verifiable facts into your posts, I look forward to engaging you at that level. "
But before you get too much holier than us liberals, let's remember how this thread began - with a letter misstating Obama's positions while accusing his supporters of not paying attention to issues. (McCain supporters admittedly enjoyed a veritable feast of issues, what with McCain having been on both sides of so many of them.) You first weighed in to make easily disproven assertions that the media has not been reporting on Obama's cabinet choices, then equated the media with Pravda. Were you calling the media Pravda when they were marching in lockstep behind Bush to launch his illegal war in Iraq?
Next, your soul mates Patriot and Purple trotted out the trusty "socialist" and "messiah" attacks. Skooter offered plenty of factual rebuttals, to which you offered some fever-dream rant about concern-trolling, internetism phobia and security clearance acronyms. Then you seemed to suggest that you are more qualified to be President than the Constitutional lawyer who was elected in a landslide, because you give better background check. If only you had been running.
Anyway, thats all in the past. Now that we are all freshly civilized, if you would care to introduce some verifiable facts into your posts, I look forward to engaging you at that level. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:30 AM:
" I'm very glad that all of the Democrats and Liberals on this board were able to indentify the important issues of these posts. Without their knowledge our Nation would surely be lost. I'm sure Mr Obama will do his best to do whatever he can to please all of you. Let's just hope it works out for the best for all of us. Some people actually care about the implications of past performances as to what the future will bear. Others don't. Some people actually care about the truth. Others don't. You have every right to feel however you do about any subject you choose. Just remember that everyone else has that right as well. It's sad to see that the Democrats and Liberals continually bash the character of those they disagree with rather than attempting to logically change their views by using facts and reason. If you have no facts and reason all that is left are insults. So don't be shocked when all you get back are insults. "
diazo wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:15 AM:
" A few more security clearances I suspect our loudly clandestine friends here possess but may be too modest to admit to:
VOSAW/LaDoWiFI - Veer Off Subject At Will / Lay down Withering Fire of Insults
AIEOU - Acronyms Invoked Excessively and Ostentatiously? U-bet.
LCOPSPEWIQ - Licensed to "Convey" One's Personal "Superiority" by "Putting" Every other "Word" In "Quotes"
SICLA2 - Special Immunity for Caps Lock Abuse, Level 2
Reading all these posts sure makes me grateful that we choose our presidents democratically, not according to whoever claims to have piled up the most security acronyms. "
VOSAW/LaDoWiFI - Veer Off Subject At Will / Lay down Withering Fire of Insults
AIEOU - Acronyms Invoked Excessively and Ostentatiously? U-bet.
LCOPSPEWIQ - Licensed to "Convey" One's Personal "Superiority" by "Putting" Every other "Word" In "Quotes"
SICLA2 - Special Immunity for Caps Lock Abuse, Level 2
Reading all these posts sure makes me grateful that we choose our presidents democratically, not according to whoever claims to have piled up the most security acronyms. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:31 AM:
" My apologies to the Editor. As for "gfguy" now that I have your number I'll take all of your posts with two grains of salt. You really don't seem to care about anything so why bother posting? Oh...because you can. That being said, I wasn't involved in any moon landings, so your guess is as good as anyone elses. I take pride in my accomplishments in life. I have done many things that still amaze me to this day that is was really me that did them. I have been able to do things and see things that other people haven't. I certainly don't have all the answers in life, but as everyone else, I have an opinion. Use yours wisely, people will respect you more. It might be fun to be the "wise cracker" at parties, but life isn't always a party. Remember, in a discussion facts go a lot farther than insults. "
IR editor wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:06 AM:
" HakonMontag:
Lest you forget you also made two posts previous to your 12:47 p.m. post, one at 8:56 and one at 9:05 a.m. If you read the follow-up posts, they're referring to your first post, not the one at 12:47.
No one sees these posts prior to me, and no one else has my "security clearance."
:-) "
Lest you forget you also made two posts previous to your 12:47 p.m. post, one at 8:56 and one at 9:05 a.m. If you read the follow-up posts, they're referring to your first post, not the one at 12:47.
No one sees these posts prior to me, and no one else has my "security clearance."
:-) "
MTRICH wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:10 PM:
" I cautiously get into this conversation but... As a former Border Patrol Officer and prior to that serving in the Army in a 96 series MOS (intelligence) I offer that the documents rumored to have been provided by then Senator Obama as proof of US citizenship would not have been enough for higher level clearances nor even for entry into this country at a immigration checkpoint by themselves. Hakonmontag is correct (based upon what I think I know of Obama's history) in that he could not qualify for a position with the Secret Service to guard a president. What we think we (the public) know of his proof of citizenship would not allow more than a secret clearance, if any, let alone his relationships with some more than questionable people. Government clearances are commonly denied for much less than legally provable facts. During my national security clearance investigations I could not have ever had a traffic ticket in excess of $100.00 or more that 3 smaller ones in 7 years for example. They spoke to my former teachers, neighbors, friends, enemies, local law enforcement, military commanders...you name it. They also investigated my parents (to a lesser extent) though my father held top secret clearances himself. Substantial rumor of wrong doing or association with those of questionable background would have been enough to disqualify me. I simply must take it for granted that what has been reported is BS and President Elect Obama has provided more appropriate proof of US citizenship but his associations would most likely still have disqualified him from holding enough clearance to be FBI, Secret Service, Border Patrol (when I was there anyway-that was before it was ICE), DEA, ATF, Marshals or even US Park Police. I am not making a political statement so dont pounce on me. I have only stated the way the system works or at least the way it worked when I worked in that system. It was all a long time ago but with only one exception I am very sure the requirements have only gotten more on one of their Secret Service teams. Bill Clinton had to many sexual and drug accusations let alone the financial stuff. George W Bush had the DUIs and alcohol issues as well as some misdemeanor arrests ( I think) in his youth. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:50 PM:
" To the Editor - I made the comment because my post of 12:47pm, gfguy's response to my post of 12:47 at 1:37 and ematts' response at 1:56 all showed up at the same time...nice. I checked just five minutes before and none of those posts were up. Five minutes later THREE posts, one of which is a direct response to my latest post. Can't happen unless "someone" is privy to the material "before" it got posted. You can't write that off. GFGUY's post and my post "showed up" at the same time. When a webpage is "updated" everyone can see it at the same time. There is no reason that it wouldn't show up on John Doe's computer but would show up on someone elses. All three posted at the same time. "
gfguy wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:48 PM:
" Yep, you're right Hakon, I'm just bursting with envy...oh wait, nobody cares. However, I do congratulate you on your "clearance."
Did the Apollo moon landing really happen or did it just take place on a sound-stage in Burbank? "
Did the Apollo moon landing really happen or did it just take place on a sound-stage in Burbank? "
ematt wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:40 PM:
" Hakon-
Apologies for noting SIOP-ESI twice. My information was simply a Google search from your post with a cut and paste response. No pretending to be a "rent a cop" intended, only checking your statement. I'm not attempting to steal your thunder here, claiming to have any clearances myself. I'm just a humble citizen who can do an internet search. "
Apologies for noting SIOP-ESI twice. My information was simply a Google search from your post with a cut and paste response. No pretending to be a "rent a cop" intended, only checking your statement. I'm not attempting to steal your thunder here, claiming to have any clearances myself. I'm just a humble citizen who can do an internet search. "
IR editor wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:46 PM:
" HakonMontag:
The only poster in this forum who works for the Independent Record is me, John Doran, the editor -- hence my "IR editor" post name. I moderate all the comments on this site, thus see them first. You are off-base on your statement that some of the posters work for us.
Thanks for your comments here and elsewhere. "
The only poster in this forum who works for the Independent Record is me, John Doran, the editor -- hence my "IR editor" post name. I moderate all the comments on this site, thus see them first. You are off-base on your statement that some of the posters work for us.
Thanks for your comments here and elsewhere. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:22 PM:
" "most are only acronyms..."
Sorry ematt but you're wrong. Some of the things you pretend to say are "simply catagories of classified information" are actual "denotations of the clearance". I do "know". I have the "clearance". Simply seeing the document "stamped" with such a "classification" means the document is classified to that level. That level then "must exist" as a classification of a type of clearance - ya think? For example there are several levels of Top Secret. The CAT-1 which I mentioned is cleared for "nuclear weapons" (for example). SIOP stands for - Security Investigation Of Parents...and anyone else in your direct familial background. So "SIOP" won't be "stamped" anywhere. ESI stands for Extensive Security Investigation, which can cover such things as "going to your schools you attended and talking with your teachers" (as they did with mine). So "ESI" won't be "stamped" anywhere. NOFORN is for NO FOREIGN NATIONALS. In other words, if "you" weren't actually BORN IN THE UNITED STATES - you can't get the "clearance", hence you can't "look at" the documents with the classification. You really shouldn't pretend that you know about security clearances. It makes you look more like a "security guard" or "rent a cop" than someone who has knowledge. Oh, you listed SIOP-ESI twice...and I also worked with "crypto" stuff but my other clearances allowed that.
The "timing" of these posts is somewhat bothersome. I think some of the "posters" may work at the IR. That's okay in itself. Just not very "genuine".
"gfguy" I really don't care what you think about my "clearances". I have them, you don't, no biggie. I'm sure you'll get over it. "
Sorry ematt but you're wrong. Some of the things you pretend to say are "simply catagories of classified information" are actual "denotations of the clearance". I do "know". I have the "clearance". Simply seeing the document "stamped" with such a "classification" means the document is classified to that level. That level then "must exist" as a classification of a type of clearance - ya think? For example there are several levels of Top Secret. The CAT-1 which I mentioned is cleared for "nuclear weapons" (for example). SIOP stands for - Security Investigation Of Parents...and anyone else in your direct familial background. So "SIOP" won't be "stamped" anywhere. ESI stands for Extensive Security Investigation, which can cover such things as "going to your schools you attended and talking with your teachers" (as they did with mine). So "ESI" won't be "stamped" anywhere. NOFORN is for NO FOREIGN NATIONALS. In other words, if "you" weren't actually BORN IN THE UNITED STATES - you can't get the "clearance", hence you can't "look at" the documents with the classification. You really shouldn't pretend that you know about security clearances. It makes you look more like a "security guard" or "rent a cop" than someone who has knowledge. Oh, you listed SIOP-ESI twice...and I also worked with "crypto" stuff but my other clearances allowed that.
The "timing" of these posts is somewhat bothersome. I think some of the "posters" may work at the IR. That's okay in itself. Just not very "genuine".
"gfguy" I really don't care what you think about my "clearances". I have them, you don't, no biggie. I'm sure you'll get over it. "
ematt wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:56 PM:
" Hakon-
Since others may not "know of what (you) speek" here's a little info:
Acronyms such as ATOMAL, CNWDI, COMSEC, COSMIC, CRYPTO, NOFORN, ORCON, SAP, SCI,
SIOP-ESI, SPECAT, SIOP-ESI, etc., are not clearances. They are categories of classified information. There are many such markings stamped or printed on
classified material, but most are only acronyms denoting special administrative handling procedures.
(ftw) "
Since others may not "know of what (you) speek" here's a little info:
Acronyms such as ATOMAL, CNWDI, COMSEC, COSMIC, CRYPTO, NOFORN, ORCON, SAP, SCI,
SIOP-ESI, SPECAT, SIOP-ESI, etc., are not clearances. They are categories of classified information. There are many such markings stamped or printed on
classified material, but most are only acronyms denoting special administrative handling procedures.
(ftw) "
gfguy wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:37 PM:
" Wow Hakon, we are all impressed. No, really. That whole bit about how Obama couldn't get clearance to see your paperwork solidifies your stance in my eyes.
Who actually comes on to an internet site and brags about his security clearance (c'mon) and blabs on about internet jargon like a 90 year old still trying to figure out the clicker on his 1980 model RCA TV? "
Who actually comes on to an internet site and brags about his security clearance (c'mon) and blabs on about internet jargon like a 90 year old still trying to figure out the clicker on his 1980 model RCA TV? "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:47 PM:
" BTW - skooters' use of "concern troller" is not exactly correct. It is more closely related to someone who is intentionally disrupting a "dedicated conversation" or forum. Since "this forum" is not dedicated to "one side of a topic" his use is incorrect. Since voicing an opposing position is not intentionally disruptive of conversation, again his usage is incorrect. So to summarize his usage of the phrase "concern troller" it could be only an attempt to "belittle" the poster and take away from the intent of the "message". Both instances of which can be related to "concern trolling tactics". One of the "planks" of the Communist Manifesto is to "accuse your opponent of exactly what YOU are guilty of". He made the accuzation of "concern trolling"...what is "he" doing? I use "his/he" without knowing whether or not "skooter" is male/female...so you wanna play skooter? "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:05 AM:
" BTW - skooter - Scooter Libby got Mark Rich CONVICTED. So being his attorney "prior to" the pardon is not a good thing. Eric Holder OTOH got him PARDONED. It is that PARDON that the Justice Department is in a rage about. They certainly didn't feel bad about the CONVICTION. You really think that trying to "twist" the arguement makes you the winner don't you? But that is the "liberal/democrat" way isn't it...If you're going to play with "FACTS" at least try to use them correctly. "
HakonMontag wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:56 AM:
" Skooter is a tried and true believer for sure. Now he points to the "others" as simply "concern trollers" (what ever that is if anything) trying to demean their character in an attempt to belittle the "message". The Democrats and Liberals for years have been "concern trolling" against anything and everything Republican or Conservative. Let's just call it "voicing your opinion" instead of putting a "pretend name" on it as is the way of the "new internet world". Everything has to have a "new name" in order to be cool and different from what it actually has been all along. Having opinions and pointing out disparities is what makes "discussion". Apparently people like "skooter" can't take the reality of discussion so they retreat into their little world of "internetism" and claim that they have invented a new "phobia". While actually they sufer from it themselves. Everything that has been stated about Mr Obama by posters here (who are wary of him) are pointed truths. Are there lots of "pointed truths" about other "politicians"? You betcha. But the politician of the hour is Mr Obama. So like it or not he is the target of the discussion. His appointees, his policies, his beliefs...all are set to be questioned. But according to the liberal/Democrat pundits...we can't question anything about him. I have great concern for a man who could not pass a National Security test to be one of his own bodyguards. Simply "because of" his associations with numerous questionable characters Mr Obama could not pass the security background check to be his own bodyguard. I know of what I speak. I currently hold a Top Secret Cat 1 SIOP ESI NOFORN clearance. Mr Obama could not do the work that I am hired to do. And he is going to be my "Commander in Chief"? He couldn't get cleared to look at my paperwork. "
purple wrote on Nov 29, 2008 5:52 PM:
" "diazo"
Oh so, we're not supposed to trash BO, but where was the democrat silence with President Bush?
The mainstream [aka LIBERAL] media, moveon.org, media matters, democrat underground, and the democrat party in total have attacked President Bush from the day he won the election in 2000 til today, and no doubt they will continue to do so long after he has left office,
but heaven forbid that anyone have the audacity to attack "the messiah". "
Oh so, we're not supposed to trash BO, but where was the democrat silence with President Bush?
The mainstream [aka LIBERAL] media, moveon.org, media matters, democrat underground, and the democrat party in total have attacked President Bush from the day he won the election in 2000 til today, and no doubt they will continue to do so long after he has left office,
but heaven forbid that anyone have the audacity to attack "the messiah". "
Ethereal wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:09 AM:
" How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. ~Anne Frank
Be the change you want to see in the world. ~Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi "
Be the change you want to see in the world. ~Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi "
diazo wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:31 AM:
" I'm curious: Do those of you who claim the press hasn't been reporting on the backgrounds of Obama's cabinet appointments, and that Obama has not presented specific policy proposals, ever actually read the newspaper or do you just log onto its website long enough to parrot Limbaugh/Hannity talking points?
There has been ample reportage on Obama's cabinet, and in today's paper conservative columnist David Brooks praises Obama's picks for their intelligence, education, experience, and non-ideological pragmatisim. He sums up Obama's team so far as "more impressive than any other in recent memory."
I realize from your previous posts that some of you regard intelligence and education as highly suspect, but we are in serious trouble and this would be a good time to get past that. We need smart people in charge right now.
Obama's policy prescriptions have been very specific, much more so than would normally be expected from someone who hasn't even taken office yet, but necessary in light of the fiasco created by the current President and his party. Obama's calls for bold action have helped bolster market confidence in the last few days.
Here's a thought - instead of trashing Obama incessantly before he's even been inaugurated, try holding your fire until he and the new Congress have actually had a chance to tackle the nation's problems? "
There has been ample reportage on Obama's cabinet, and in today's paper conservative columnist David Brooks praises Obama's picks for their intelligence, education, experience, and non-ideological pragmatisim. He sums up Obama's team so far as "more impressive than any other in recent memory."
I realize from your previous posts that some of you regard intelligence and education as highly suspect, but we are in serious trouble and this would be a good time to get past that. We need smart people in charge right now.
Obama's policy prescriptions have been very specific, much more so than would normally be expected from someone who hasn't even taken office yet, but necessary in light of the fiasco created by the current President and his party. Obama's calls for bold action have helped bolster market confidence in the last few days.
Here's a thought - instead of trashing Obama incessantly before he's even been inaugurated, try holding your fire until he and the new Congress have actually had a chance to tackle the nation's problems? "
Ding wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:56 PM:
" We subsidize the oil companies? What planet does Wonkerbean live on? They provide us with energy and pay more in taxes than they make in profit.
For those who were delusional enough to think Obama would change anything, welcome to the new Clintonista cabinet! "
For those who were delusional enough to think Obama would change anything, welcome to the new Clintonista cabinet! "
gln wrote on Nov 22, 2008 12:23 PM:
" wow, we got a couple months before he even gets into office and the crap just starts stacking. In two weeks, all your 401K were cut in half,,,, IN TWO WEEKS!we have two MONTHS to go!and now all this nonsence. time for some to do a reality check! "
skooter wrote on Nov 22, 2008 8:54 AM:
" There's a term on the net called "concern trolling" where people pretend to be concerned about something to basically have an opportunity to bash that idea or person. I'm sure the incoming administration would profusely apologize for not having their entire staff in place for the gang of trollers here - and of course to their liking - in the TWO & A HALF WEEKS since the election.
Patriot thinks he should have a complete plan for the future - though typically incoming Presidents are expected to remain in the background out of respect until the sitting president vacates. Oh and we're all going to be socialists soon! But he WAS hopeful he'd change everything by now, but he hasn't so he's obviously a hoax.
Dietz is concerned about a lot - some old pre-election stuff and that Obama is getting in bed with lobbyists. I hate to sound like purple here - but Bush spent upwards of $40-50M on his inaugural and virtually all of it came from corp/lobby money. Obama said he would limit the access and influence of big lobby - I guarantee he will be more so inclined than past administrations.
HakonMontag has found a rally cry: Mark Rich, Mark Rich, Mark Rich! I'm sure your exhaustive research also showed that his attorney of record prior to the pardon was Scooter Libby - who was convicted of a crime and had his 30 month sentence commuted by Bush. It's a tangled web ain't it? Word is there's more explosive Bush Pardons to come - he pardons staff for the scandals of the last 8 years.
MKWalker - its was cold last month - global warming is a sham! Who needs polar ice caps! (hint: evidently we all do.) "
Patriot thinks he should have a complete plan for the future - though typically incoming Presidents are expected to remain in the background out of respect until the sitting president vacates. Oh and we're all going to be socialists soon! But he WAS hopeful he'd change everything by now, but he hasn't so he's obviously a hoax.
Dietz is concerned about a lot - some old pre-election stuff and that Obama is getting in bed with lobbyists. I hate to sound like purple here - but Bush spent upwards of $40-50M on his inaugural and virtually all of it came from corp/lobby money. Obama said he would limit the access and influence of big lobby - I guarantee he will be more so inclined than past administrations.
HakonMontag has found a rally cry: Mark Rich, Mark Rich, Mark Rich! I'm sure your exhaustive research also showed that his attorney of record prior to the pardon was Scooter Libby - who was convicted of a crime and had his 30 month sentence commuted by Bush. It's a tangled web ain't it? Word is there's more explosive Bush Pardons to come - he pardons staff for the scandals of the last 8 years.
MKWalker - its was cold last month - global warming is a sham! Who needs polar ice caps! (hint: evidently we all do.) "
wonkerbean wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:14 PM:
" we need to get our energy house in order. for too long we have allowed fossil fuel industries a free ride and we need to move over to renewable energy. why should we, the taxpayer, subsidize these companies that are making our lives misearble? "
mkwalker wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:30 PM:
" In response to ENU22- the bigger picture is actually that the myth of global warming continues at an alarming media inspired rate and that we continue to buy into the fact that global warming as such is real. For a moment (in fact about two hours if you can spare them) put on your scientist hat and watch a documentary produced by the BBC called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758
According to NOAA satellite and information system we just concluded the coolest October in eleven years and have actually been in a cooling trend for the past several years. Not exactly the shrill alarmist rhetoric perpetuated by Al Gore and his grant $$$ mongering cronies.
If, after becoming informed, not duped, you still want to talk about the environment and climate change at least you'll sound intelligent. Think science-not propaganda. "
According to NOAA satellite and information system we just concluded the coolest October in eleven years and have actually been in a cooling trend for the past several years. Not exactly the shrill alarmist rhetoric perpetuated by Al Gore and his grant $$$ mongering cronies.
If, after becoming informed, not duped, you still want to talk about the environment and climate change at least you'll sound intelligent. Think science-not propaganda. "
dietz1963 wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:21 PM:
" Have to agree with hakonmontag. What is being reported with regard to Obama is still a "wow, great choice, good going" attitude when in fact there should be a lot of questions in an "brow beater tone" instead.
Fact is that he got to the senate in the first place...not by virtue of his merits but by eliminating his competition. From the words of his own campaign managers "obama did not like to get elected that way, but went along with it anyway." But hey, no questions right?
He promised to use public funding for his campaign, which would have been wise and fair. Fact is, he went back on his word going with private funding and by doing so...cannot be audited as is the case with public funding.
He talks tough about pulling out of Iraq, says cost a lot of money. At the same time he wants to commit more troops to Afghanistan and has told Dafur that "the issue there will be his top priority" whereby he will commit troops there. I suppose to him those are OK wars.
He promised no usage of lobbiest. Fact is he is now going back on his word cause he needs more then 9.6 million dollars to transition. They are suger coating it by say "oh but with us we it will be different cause we are going to put stipulations on the lobbiest. Yea, right, and what difference does that make? Point is going back on his promise (saying one thing, doing another). And here is a good question, why does it cost a dime to transition anyway?
He's President elect now, its not like anything he does is going to put him out of office right away. So why is it when people are asking him "whats up, whats going on, whats your plan?" He was pretty vocal while he has been campaigning. Yet now he is elected, is not participating in anything and he refuses to answer saying "thats all you are getting out of me". And people working for him will get fired if they say anything. Why the secrecy?
And while his questionable past should not be questioned (his words more or less) he has a 7 page questionare for hiring his cabinet where one of the questions is what lovers has one had in the past and do families own weapons. Whats up with that?
I am still willing to see what he can do but please, if this is the start...I think we are in a world of trouble ahead. "
Fact is that he got to the senate in the first place...not by virtue of his merits but by eliminating his competition. From the words of his own campaign managers "obama did not like to get elected that way, but went along with it anyway." But hey, no questions right?
He promised to use public funding for his campaign, which would have been wise and fair. Fact is, he went back on his word going with private funding and by doing so...cannot be audited as is the case with public funding.
He talks tough about pulling out of Iraq, says cost a lot of money. At the same time he wants to commit more troops to Afghanistan and has told Dafur that "the issue there will be his top priority" whereby he will commit troops there. I suppose to him those are OK wars.
He promised no usage of lobbiest. Fact is he is now going back on his word cause he needs more then 9.6 million dollars to transition. They are suger coating it by say "oh but with us we it will be different cause we are going to put stipulations on the lobbiest. Yea, right, and what difference does that make? Point is going back on his promise (saying one thing, doing another). And here is a good question, why does it cost a dime to transition anyway?
He's President elect now, its not like anything he does is going to put him out of office right away. So why is it when people are asking him "whats up, whats going on, whats your plan?" He was pretty vocal while he has been campaigning. Yet now he is elected, is not participating in anything and he refuses to answer saying "thats all you are getting out of me". And people working for him will get fired if they say anything. Why the secrecy?
And while his questionable past should not be questioned (his words more or less) he has a 7 page questionare for hiring his cabinet where one of the questions is what lovers has one had in the past and do families own weapons. Whats up with that?
I am still willing to see what he can do but please, if this is the start...I think we are in a world of trouble ahead. "
patriot wrote on Nov 21, 2008 12:09 PM:
" Oh My,
Tillie, you started a firestorm, you even woke up the IR editor. But of course the IR editorial staff still doesn't have an original thought. So be it!
During this transition period Obama has not proclaimed or announced any of plans for the future. Nada, None, Nyet, no way dude!! Please do not stay awake at night waiting for the "chosen one" to impart any plans to save our economy. His appointees have not inspired wall street in the least. We still hear only mindless rhetoric from Obama supporters.
I was hoping for Obama to be the "agent of change" he proclaimed and I will continue to wait.
His cabinet and staff appointees are old Washington Insiders, the same types he indicated were the screwing up our country. The Obama camp is now backpeddling on how much longer it will take to fix things.
HakonMontag has some very good points , referencing cold war Europe is approppriate. Our country may very well be headed on the path of a socialistic America. Will Obama spread his wealth around, offer to take no wages during these trying times. No way dude, private school tuition in DC is very expensive. "
Tillie, you started a firestorm, you even woke up the IR editor. But of course the IR editorial staff still doesn't have an original thought. So be it!
During this transition period Obama has not proclaimed or announced any of plans for the future. Nada, None, Nyet, no way dude!! Please do not stay awake at night waiting for the "chosen one" to impart any plans to save our economy. His appointees have not inspired wall street in the least. We still hear only mindless rhetoric from Obama supporters.
I was hoping for Obama to be the "agent of change" he proclaimed and I will continue to wait.
His cabinet and staff appointees are old Washington Insiders, the same types he indicated were the screwing up our country. The Obama camp is now backpeddling on how much longer it will take to fix things.
HakonMontag has some very good points , referencing cold war Europe is approppriate. Our country may very well be headed on the path of a socialistic America. Will Obama spread his wealth around, offer to take no wages during these trying times. No way dude, private school tuition in DC is very expensive. "
BigP wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:38 AM:
" Wow, I am so glad that Obama is picking some long time servants of our Great Country, he is looking for the best of the best. I think it was evident that Obama was picking people in with a long history in political offices as exampled by his choice of Vice President. You go Obama. "
HakonMontag wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:16 AM:
" Yes and where is the "dirt" on their backgrounds like Eric Holder and his work towards getting the "pardon" for the billionaire criminal? The Justice Department is LIVID over his potential apppointment. The point is that Obama made a promise and is not able to deliver on it mainly due to "politics as usual". It's how DC runs. He basically should not have made such a promise in the first place. But that is what his "supporters" wanted to hear...promise me the world, promise me change. Okay, but you're not going to get it. "
IR editor wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:01 AM:
" HakonMontag:
Major media is indeed broadcasting the backgrounds of Obama's selections for his cabinet, and major media is pointing out the discrepancy between "change" and some of these Washington D.C. politicians he's choosing. Please see here for one of MANY examples.
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/11/20/national/55na_081120_daschle.txt "
Major media is indeed broadcasting the backgrounds of Obama's selections for his cabinet, and major media is pointing out the discrepancy between "change" and some of these Washington D.C. politicians he's choosing. Please see here for one of MANY examples.
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/11/20/national/55na_081120_daschle.txt "
HakonMontag wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:28 AM:
" In the last few weeks I have pointed out numerous times that Mr.Obamas' picks for his Cabinet positions are somewhat "questionable". The major media is not "broadcasting" the background of his picks - simply who they are. They are not equating the stated ideal of "change" with the reality of who he has chosen to be his group of confidants. I don't think the media is going to pick up on this issue as they really don't care. They were so enthralled with the aspect of him being President that they really don't care what comes next. Kind of a sad testament to our media. When the media loses objectivity they lose credibility and become nothing better than a mouthpiece for the "government". Kind of like the old "Pravda" of the cold war days. It's sad that our media has lost the desire to be the watchdogs of politics and instead are pushing their political agenda - which they can have it is their right - but at the same time they can no longer claim "objectivity". They all bemoan the "rampant conservative talk shows" and at the same time are nothing less than rampant liberal pundits. "
skooter wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:14 AM:
" Ah two more Obama myths being plied here - seems sorta disingenuous that Ms. Brown even cares enough to write this after the fact since she probably didn't vote for him, but that's ok:
He never said his intention was to put coal companies out of business - that's an old interview that was edited and incomplete. He said he was going to push clean coal in order to push for a more modern coal industry. McCain's policy was almost exactly the same.
And yes there are some old school appointees - but there is certainly a good deal of new blood too. If you expect to get things done in DC quickly you couldn't have a bunch of neophytes brought in. Obama promised change and a renewed focus on US rather than just the wealthy and business class. That change will come in the ideas presented and policies implemented in the long run. AS long as the appointees (old or new) are following that agenda - we'll hopefully see some differences in the way the country is run.
Like everyone - we'll have to wait and see - but if change is really what you want Ms. Tillie you should make sure you tell your representatives so when they get back after the holidays and the Obama administration begins. Also, write to President Bush and tell him you don't support his admin's attempts to write, implement and lessen water quality, and other regulatory standards as gifts for industry and lobbyists on his way out the back door. "
He never said his intention was to put coal companies out of business - that's an old interview that was edited and incomplete. He said he was going to push clean coal in order to push for a more modern coal industry. McCain's policy was almost exactly the same.
And yes there are some old school appointees - but there is certainly a good deal of new blood too. If you expect to get things done in DC quickly you couldn't have a bunch of neophytes brought in. Obama promised change and a renewed focus on US rather than just the wealthy and business class. That change will come in the ideas presented and policies implemented in the long run. AS long as the appointees (old or new) are following that agenda - we'll hopefully see some differences in the way the country is run.
Like everyone - we'll have to wait and see - but if change is really what you want Ms. Tillie you should make sure you tell your representatives so when they get back after the holidays and the Obama administration begins. Also, write to President Bush and tell him you don't support his admin's attempts to write, implement and lessen water quality, and other regulatory standards as gifts for industry and lobbyists on his way out the back door. "
obsethed wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:13 AM:
" Sorry it didn't change for you overnight! Thanks for your input...miracle worker! "
messenger wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:13 AM:
" It seems voters were more interested in making history than paying attention to the real issues. "
electstat wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:41 AM:
" You made the mistake of assuming people that vote take it upon themselves to research the candidates they are voting for instead of what they hear from the media. Don't get me wrong - this happens whether you are Repub or Demo, it just happens to be that this time it was for Dem. "
enu22 wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:18 AM:
" The bigger picture is global warming and pollution (include health-related issues with the latter). Ecologically speaking, coal is a terrible polluter, not only does it green house gasses but it also releases a GREAT amount of particulate matter. Have you ever parked your car near a coal-fired plant? Today's technology envisioned to clean up coal-fired plant emissions is VERY expensive (your electric bills will rise).
The point here is...we humans need to focus on the long term objective of cleaning up our environment, lowering our carbon gas emissions, curbing our impact on global warming, and be good stewards of Mother Earth. Coal burning plants do not meet these expectations - without going to great expense. Furthermore, I believe the recent bout with high gasoline prices were the best thing for our country in 30 years. Our useage has decreased and "we" are more attuned to developing cleaner-burning, more fuel efficient cars.
Oh yeah, the ride will be bumpy; change is stressful. if we don't change, life will be even bumpier. "
The point here is...we humans need to focus on the long term objective of cleaning up our environment, lowering our carbon gas emissions, curbing our impact on global warming, and be good stewards of Mother Earth. Coal burning plants do not meet these expectations - without going to great expense. Furthermore, I believe the recent bout with high gasoline prices were the best thing for our country in 30 years. Our useage has decreased and "we" are more attuned to developing cleaner-burning, more fuel efficient cars.
Oh yeah, the ride will be bumpy; change is stressful. if we don't change, life will be even bumpier. "
Share Article
patriot wrote on Dec 5, 2008 5:37 PM:
I agree with your comment regarding personal attacks. I hope you meant only this series of child like postings from those who chose to respond.
There are alternatives for this forum relative to the rules for response. Think about an approach which allows comments/rebuttals to the original letter only. Good Luck! "