Tex

I have an honest question for all those that believe Obama will solve
their problems.

When it goes to hell in a handbasket, is it Bush's fault? Or Obama's
fault?
Or is it Congress's fault?
Or Karl Rove's fault?
Or is it Limbaugh's fault?

Who are you going to blame after Jan 20, 2009 ?

Tex

Gsmith

Tex wrote:
> I have an honest question for all those that believe Obama will solve
> their problems.
>
> When it goes to hell in a handbasket, is it Bush's fault? Or Obama's
> fault?
> Or is it Congress's fault?
> Or Karl Rove's fault?
> Or is it Limbaugh's fault?
>
> Who are you going to blame after Jan 20, 2009 ?
>
> Tex

Theres another question that beginning to bother me

I want McCain to win....but if he does and happens to die

When it goes to hell in a handbasket, is it Bush's fault? Or Obama's
fault?
Or is it Rove's fault?
Or Pailin's fault?
Or is it McCain's fault?

Who do we blame then after Jan 20, 2009 if that happens?
She doesn't have it.
gsmith

the Moderator

"Tex" <> wrote in message
news:4b851a83-c190-41f0-ae15-...
>I have an honest question for all those that believe Obama will solve
> their problems.
>
> When it goes to hell in a handbasket, is it Bush's fault? Or Obama's
> fault?
> Or is it Congress's fault?
> Or Karl Rove's fault?
> Or is it Limbaugh's fault?
>
> Who are you going to blame after Jan 20, 2009 ?
>
> Tex

John McCain

Lloyd Parsons

In article
<4b851a83-c190-41f0-ae15->,
Tex <> wrote:

> I have an honest question for all those that believe Obama will solve
> their problems.
>
> When it goes to hell in a handbasket, is it Bush's fault? Or Obama's
> fault?
> Or is it Congress's fault?
> Or Karl Rove's fault?
> Or is it Limbaugh's fault?
>
> Who are you going to blame after Jan 20, 2009 ?
>
> Tex

That's easy, blame them all. They are all part and parcel of the
serious issues affecting us.

R&B

"Tex" <> wrote ...
>
>I have an honest question for all those that believe Obama will solve
> their problems.
>
> When it goes to hell in a handbasket, is it Bush's fault? Or Obama's
> fault?
> Or is it Congress's fault?
> Or Karl Rove's fault?
> Or is it Limbaugh's fault?
>
> Who are you going to blame after Jan 20, 2009 ?
>
> Tex


I support Obama. But I don't support him because I believe he's going to
solve any of MY problems. Most of my problems are of my own making, so I
figure the solutions will come from me. And being self-employed, I know
that my earnings rests mostly in my own hands. I say "mostly" because I
also know that the economy will influence it to some degree. But for the
most part, my earnings potential rests in my own hands.

I support Obama because I share his vision for what's best for America.

I don't believe that tax breaks for the richest Americans is best for
America while the middle class struggles to make ends meet, can't afford
college for their kids, can't afford $4-a-gallon gas.

I don't believe that the health care system as it is presently structured is
fair or reasonable when many other countries offer world-class health care
to all its citizens at prices that are lower than what I'd pay for health
insurance here in America. The insurance companies and pharmecuticals have
been ripping off America since the Nixon Administration, and enough is
enough. I believe McCain offers more of the same, and Obama offers a new
approach to the health care issue. I'm for change. Any change would be
better than what we've got. Seriously. It couldn't be worse.

I don't believe the war in Iraq was necessary or beneficial to America.
Once we realized there were no WMDs, we had no business there. Period.
This just in: They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us for our
air strikes.

I believe the Bush Administration completely took its eye off the ball in
Afganastan when it distracted America and the world with its petty invasion
and occupation of Iraq. Saddam is gone. Big whoop. Less Americans died
when he was alive and running his country. I could not give a shit less
about the people of Iraq. And one thing is certain. The whole Bush-Cheney
notion of "spreading Democracy" in the Middle East is a wild fantasy. It
ain't gonna happen, whether we stay there or not. Get used to it.

In an fragile economic environment like the one we're in right now, I don't
believe John McCain is the man for the job. Especially when his closest
advisors are the people who helped get us into this mess in the first place
(like Phil Gramm). Under certain circumstances, the "trickle down"
philosophy worked. It worked in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. But this
ain't 1980, and circumstances are much different today. We've learned that
an unregulated market is one in which the greediest of the greedy game the
system and leave everybody else out. And the Bush Administration's approach
of putting foxes in charge of all the regulatory henhouses is just insane.

And I do not trust John McCain. He has changed his position on nearly every
issue that matters. One minute he's a deregulator, now he's calling for
regulation. One minute he calls the evangelical wing "agents of
intolerance," the next minute he's cozying up to them to get their votes.
One minute he speaks of the importance of experience in the Oval Office, the
next minute he chooses his babysitter to be the next Vice-President. Gimme
a fuckin' break.

Regardless of who gets elected and what goes wrong, the person I'm going to
blame is YOU. And others like you. Because you'll be the ones resistent to
change.

Why not? As recently as this year, I've continued hearing those on the
right blame Bill Clinton for our troubles today. That makes about as much
sense.

Randy

Tex

Landed the big one...

On Oct 2, 1:38 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> I support Obama because I share his vision for what's best for America.

What is best for America (and any country) is smaller Government, not
bigger.

> I don't believe that tax breaks for the richest Americans is best for
> America while the middle class struggles to make ends meet, can't afford
> college for their kids, can't afford $4-a-gallon gas.

So you believe in Income re-distribution?
How else will taking more from those with more help those with less?
College costs are increasing because you've got Federal Loans to
promote "everyone" deserves to go to college. College's have limited
space and more and more people wanting in...can you supply and
demand...costs go up.
How will raising taxes on Oil companies lower the price of gas?

> I don't believe that the health care system as it is presently structured is
> fair or reasonable when many other countries offer world-class health care
> to all its citizens at prices that are lower than what I'd pay for health
> insurance here in America.  The insurance companies and pharmecuticals have
> been ripping off America since the Nixon Administration, and enough is
> enough.  I believe McCain offers more of the same, and Obama offers a new
> approach to the health care issue.  I'm for change.  Any change would be
> better than what we've got.  Seriously.  It couldn't be worse.

Yes, it can be worse. Imagine Nancy Pelosi deciding what treatments
will be covered under the Government Health Care in 2010...yikes.
Imagine what happens when Randy needs a new heart in 2012....sorry,
you are too old to get a new ticker.

> I don't believe the war in Iraq was necessary or beneficial to America.
> Once we realized there were no WMDs, we had no business there.  Period.
> This just in:  They don't hate us for our freedoms.  They hate us for our
> air strikes.

Iraq war is ending or not ending regardless of the President...even
your "savior" has altered his position on this.

> In an fragile economic environment like the one we're in right now, I don't
> believe John McCain is the man for the job.  Especially when his closest
> advisors are the people who helped get us into this mess in the first place
> (like Phil Gramm).  Under certain circumstances, the "trickle down"
> philosophy worked.  It worked in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan.  But this
> ain't 1980, and circumstances are much different today.  We've learned that
> an unregulated market is one in which the greediest of the greedy game the
> system and leave everybody else out.  And the Bush Administration's approach
> of putting foxes in charge of all the regulatory henhouses is just insane.

And Obama's advisors (Like Raines) are better?
You believe in "change"....find...let's change ALL of them

> And I do not trust John McCain.  He has changed his position on nearly every
> issue that matters.  

Have you been following Obama closely? He's all over the map as
well....it's called "Get Thyself Elected".

> Regardless of who gets elected and what goes wrong, the person I'm going to
> blame is YOU.  And others like you.  Because you'll be the ones resistent to
> change.

Change to what? It changes every year....what hole have you been
hiding in?

Blame game, very much a Liberal policy.

> Why not?  As recently as this year, I've continued hearing those on the
> right blame Bill Clinton for our troubles today.  That makes about as much
> sense.

And you keep bringing up that rat bastard.....which means you'll keep
blaming Bush, even after it's Obama in office.

You see, you don't think "your way" is wrong....everyone else is.

Just remember, the first thing to go in a recession is non-essential
work....whoops.

Tex

R&B

"Tex" wrote ...


> What is best for America (and any country) is smaller
> Government, not bigger.


That's your opinion, and it's one shared by many.

It's not one that is universally held.

Further, making government smaller doesn't make it better if by making it
smaller you also make it more inept.



> So you believe in Income re-distribution?


Bogus argument. There's always income redistribution. At the present, it's
just being redistributed toward major corporations (which, by definition, is
a fascist approach) and the people who need it the least.

With a middle class that's hurting, and with "trickle down" proving to be
nothing more than a shell game, then yes, I support income redistribution.


> How else will taking more from those with more help those with less?


If I give you $1,000, how will it NOT help you? (By the way, don't hold
your breath on that.)

If the middle class has more, it'll make a bigger impact in their lives.

If you give a tax cut to the richest of Americans (or their corporations),
it's been proven that it won't "trickle down."



> College costs are increasing because you've got Federal Loans to
> promote "everyone" deserves to go to college.


Any society benefits by having its citizens better educated.

Facist regimes benefit by keeping its citizens less educated.

That's just a fact.


> College's have limited space and more and more people
> wanting in...can you supply and demand...costs go up.


With such a poorly constructed sentence, I'm assuming you studied English at
the George W. Bush School of Language Mangling. I have no clue what you
were trying to communicate with that last inartful attempt at communication.


> How will raising taxes on Oil companies lower the price of gas?


Get this through your thick head, Tex: Lowering gas prices by 10 or 20
cents a gallon is pointless. It will just inch back up. When I first got
my driver's license, gas was 33 cents per gallon (regular). 37 for premium.
(Unleaded hadn't been invented yet.) The price doesn't go down. It might
go down for a month, but the overall curve of oil prices is perpetually up.
Just ask the folks in foreign countries where it's $8 a gallon.

The solution to our energy crisis requires a long-term committment to free
us from the addiction of foreign oil altogether, and a fundamental shift
away from fossil fuels. It's better for the planet. It's better for the
economy. And once we're off foreign oil completely, it'll be better for our
national security.

What's not to like?

I mean, other than the fact that you're in Texas and all your buddies are in
the oil bidness?


>> I believe McCain offers more of the same, and Obama offers a new
>> approach to the health care issue. I'm for change. Any change would be
>> better than what we've got. Seriously. It couldn't be worse.


> Yes, it can be worse. Imagine Nancy Pelosi deciding what treatments
> will be covered under the Government Health Care in 2010...yikes.


You mean like Richard Nixon decided what health care options we would have
back when that despicable criminal was president? That's what we have
today.

Let's separate fact from fantasy. Nancy Pelosi will not be making any
medical diagnosis...for you or for me. Under the Obama plan, prices will
come down, making health care more affordable for both of us, with choices
left in place so you can purchase your health care plan from whatever
provider you want to deal with.

Personally, I preferred Hillary Clinton's Universal Health Care plan, and
I'm hopeful that her position in the Senate will enable her to spearhead the
effort to get UHC passed...finally.

The right's foolish attempts to paint it as "Nancy Pelosi (or Hillary
Clinton) making decisions on treatments you receive" is a lie. Just like
I'm sure it was a lie back in FDR's day when opponents to Social Security
argued that FDR will be the one deciding how you spend your Social Security
checks.

Find something a little more relevant with which to make your argument.
Nancy Pelosi won't be in the doctor's office wearing a stethascope.
(Although in your case, we might have her put on a rubber glove just for
effect.)


> Imagine what happens when Randy needs a new heart in 2012....sorry,
> you are too old to get a new ticker.


You and the rest of the folks on the right have been so wrong for so long
with all your predictions about the future, isn't it time you put your
crystal ball away?



> Iraq war is ending or not ending regardless of the President...even
> your "savior" has altered his position on this.


Nice dodge. The war in Iraq is not the problem. The mindset that led to
the buildup to war in Iraq is the problem.

The choice of a president has EVERYTHING to do with what mindset and
judgement that is used in such situations. War was never Bush's "last
option." Nor would it ever be McCain's "last option." It's too close to
the top of their lists of options, thank you.



>> And the Bush Administration's approach of putting foxes
>> in charge of all the regulatory henhouses is just insane.

> And Obama's advisors (Like Raines) are better?
> You believe in "change"....find...let's change ALL of them


It is duly noted that you're part of the "let's throw 'em all out" crowd.

Let me know when you vote against the Republican incumbents on your ballot.

I won't be holding my breath.


>> And I do not trust John McCain. He has changed his position on nearly
>> every
>> issue that matters.

> Have you been following Obama closely? He's all over the map as
>well....it's called "Get Thyself Elected".


Have I been following it closely? Are you kidding? I live and breathe this
stuff. I have the news on 24/7/365. I read. I blog. Half my clients are
news/talk (mostly talk) radio stations. I've always been a news junkie. I
dare say I pay closer attention to this stuff than you do, or than most
people do.

Obama has been consistent on all the big issues. There is some nuance to
some of his positions, and his opponents like to portray that as a shift.
It's not. The principles upon which his policies are based have not changed
one iota.

On the flip side, McCain has gone from dismissing the religious right as
"agents of intolerance" to coddling them to coalesce the Republican base.
He has gone from describing himself as always having been a deregulator (and
his voting record would support this) to now coming out in favor of
regulations of Wall Street only after it became politically expedient to do
so. He voted against the MLK national holiday, then voted again years later
on other peripheral matters that would support it, only to reverse his
position and admit he was wrong to oppose it...but only after he was running
for president in '00. He makes the claim of being all about cleaning
Washington out of lobbyists, when his campaign is run by lobbyists.

Tell me, Tex, other than his support of the surge, name one PRINCIPLED
stance has McCain ever taken. Just one.



>> Regardless of who gets elected and what goes wrong, the person I'm going
>> to
>> blame is YOU. And others like you. Because you'll be the ones resistent
>> to
>> change.


> Change to what? It changes every year....what hole have you been
> hiding in?


Change to an economic policy that favors the middle class.

Or better yet, how 'bout this: A change that would put a leader in the
White House who knows that he is representing not just the well-connected,
but ALL Americans.

That would be change I could believe in.



> Blame game, very much a Liberal policy.


Oh, you mean like all those gazillion times we heard members of the right
blame Bill Clinton for every problem plaguing America, even years after he
left the White House?

Are you now disowning those finger-pointing incidents?


> And you keep bringing up that rat bastard.....which means you'll keep
> blaming Bush, even after it's Obama in office.


Just like you and the right kept blaming Clinton years after Bush was in the
White House.


Here's my hope: I hope that when Obama is elected, he won't ignore those of
you on the right in the same way Bush has ignored those of us on the left.
It sucks to live in a country where the government doesn't value you. I
suppose the spite and divisiveness those of you on the right feel toward the
left is something you believe is healthy for America. I don't share that
view. I believe we're all in this together, and if citizens are left to
feel like they're not a part of this country, then it's not helpful.

Like Michael Moore says in his recently released movie, "Slacker Uprising,"
I believe that even after Barack Obama takes office, we should continue to
let those of you on the right marry each other.


> Just remember, the first thing to go in a recession is
> non-essential work....whoops.


When the issues don't line up for you, I suppose all you're left with is to
hurl childish insults. Why didn't you just say something like, "Your mother
wears Army boots," or "My dad can beat your dad up," or "My dick's bigger
than your dick." (Not that any of it is true, especially the last one.)

Nice try. But in any economy, companies (the ones that are left, anyway)
will always be in need of advertising and marketing. So even if they cut
back on their budget and purchase fewer commercials, the commercials they do
purchase will still need a voice. Plus, that's not the only thing I do. My
field has proven to be surprisingly robust, even in times of recession.
There will always be radio and TV stations, and that means there will always
be a call for what I do.

But thanks for thinking of me and wishing me the very best.

The same back at ya.

Randy

Carbon

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:47:01 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 3-Oct-2008, Tex <> wrote:
>
>> > Facist regimes benefit by keeping its citizens less educated.
>
> Facism is just a variant of socialism. They are both collectivist in
> nature where capitalism is individualist.

Um, not really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Tex

On Oct 3, 6:09 pm, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "Tex" <marktexkoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a7e71db7-624a-45a8-82cc-...
>
> Michael Moore...'nuff said.  Maybe one day he'll knock on your door
> and you can share burgers and chips with him.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ever notice the striking resemblance between Cow Brown and Michael Moore?

Ugly t-shirts and lots of yelling?

Tex

Tex

On Oct 3, 9:22 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
> > On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:17:08 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> > <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>
> >>John McCain has voted against alternative energy time and time again.  Now
> >>he's running a campaign in which he sound like he's always been a
> >>supporter.
> >>But his voting record proves he is anything but.  The fact is, McCain is
> >>in
> >>Big Oil's hip pocket.
>
> > At least he was in its pocket.    But I'm glad to see politicians
> > change their minds when times change or their knowledge changes.
>
> Fact:  John McCain supported George H. W. Bush's position opposing off-shore
> drilling.

At the current prices of Oil, it made sense....unless you were on the
side that believed more US Oil is good, imported Oil is bad.

> Fact:  When big oil executives ponied up a sizeable campaign contribution
> earlier this year to the McCain campaign, within a matter of a few days, he
> came out with his new off-shore drilling position.

Timing....FACT: The "people" (remember "We The People"?) demanded from
their Government that we begin drillin our resources this Spring....I
know your side doesn't believe that, but it happened. Even Pelosi saw
it and changed her tune....but of course, she'll change back as soon
as she's feels it will gain her something.

> I'm fine with politicians changing their position when new facts emerge.
> But to do so for political expediency, and only in response to contributions
> to your campaign, it only serves to reinforce the predisposition that the
> only parties with any influence on policy are those who are well-connected
> and well-financed.

So when Obama finally changed his stance on offshore drilling, was it
based on facts or political expediency? I think you'll blow alot of
hot air around that one, but everyone knows it was for the latter.

Tex