Wow...I get on here to check out a discussion on the profound, methodical and intellectual practice of catching fish and stumble upon a thread like this. And I love it. I have certainly discovered that Cheez....is my new pal. Way to go Cheez, even though this is a fishing forum your initiative ensures we keep in mind that whats going on is affecting us and will affect us heavily...apparently at no choice of ours. But who are we anyway...according to CBS, MSNBC and our most prestigous and scholarly political leaders we are angry mobs and UnAmerican.
Help Support Chattanooga Fishing Forum:
jon the fisherman
Well-known member
No offense taken Cheez, and I stand corrected.
G
Guest
Guest
Again Danny I do not have thin skin. I have not said one word in a personal negative manner to either of you. The only response you guys have offered is innuendo, typical.
bigmike7688
New member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4
I've read the first post in this thread over and over again, attempting to understand how one could conjur up such irrelevant nonsense.
The article states that because obama wants health care for all, similar to the socialist party usa, he is somehow attempting to shove socialism down our
throats. This logic is quite flawed in its assertion that because they share a similar aspect, the increase in health coverage for all americans, that they
must both be socialists. Having a similar characteristic as another political system does not make the two systems fundamentally the same. Furthermore, many on here seem inclined to place blame on democrats and obama for increasing the national debt and not taking into account the costs associated with the proposed health care plan. It may be helpful to remember that when the Republican George Bush became president he was handed a financially balanced government. However, after just a few short years, the republicans seemed to turn our balanced budget into an almost trillion dollar deficit all while loosening government restrictions on large corporations such as the mortgage companies. Such companies then inturn spurred the economic crisis we have and are witnessing. What strikes me as odd and complex is that no republicans would mention that the bush administration pushed us toward this debacle or attempted to stop his spending on a war in Iraq to "democratize" their government. Which is code word for payback and oil. But now that Obama wants to help fellow americans increase their health care, there is an uproar that he is some evil socialist trying to ruin our country. Why is it ok to spend billions on a war which brought us no measurable rewards and decreased our image as the world power with our allies, but trying to help fellow americans is a terrible socialist agenda? The article also confuses a key concept of the obama agenda,"living wage". This is in no ways means the same as a "Guarenteed income." Obama is trying to make the conditions of our many poor people in this country somewhat better, he is not guarenting an equal income for all, as socialists call for, rather he is trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves. I am in no way trying to advocate that obama is the next great president or even fulfilling many of his campaign promises, but he is in no way trying to make america socialist. As for the Anneberg challenge, the program brought hundreds of millions of dollars to many much deserving private and public schools in chicago to help further educate young people, not to spread socialist ideas. And Finally as for the quote "Capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks equity", well democracy seeks equality for all and is a precondition for capitalism. The Obama programs are designed for equality, which is a nessecary condition for democracy. And just to chime in on the religous aspect. Our many of you so willing to bash Obama that you refer to him as the anti-christ? I am in no way trying to offend anyone but that is a childish assertion and amounts to little more than name calling, similar to elementary students. All aside I am open-mided and would love to read and debate any responses.
The article states that because obama wants health care for all, similar to the socialist party usa, he is somehow attempting to shove socialism down our
throats. This logic is quite flawed in its assertion that because they share a similar aspect, the increase in health coverage for all americans, that they
must both be socialists. Having a similar characteristic as another political system does not make the two systems fundamentally the same. Furthermore, many on here seem inclined to place blame on democrats and obama for increasing the national debt and not taking into account the costs associated with the proposed health care plan. It may be helpful to remember that when the Republican George Bush became president he was handed a financially balanced government. However, after just a few short years, the republicans seemed to turn our balanced budget into an almost trillion dollar deficit all while loosening government restrictions on large corporations such as the mortgage companies. Such companies then inturn spurred the economic crisis we have and are witnessing. What strikes me as odd and complex is that no republicans would mention that the bush administration pushed us toward this debacle or attempted to stop his spending on a war in Iraq to "democratize" their government. Which is code word for payback and oil. But now that Obama wants to help fellow americans increase their health care, there is an uproar that he is some evil socialist trying to ruin our country. Why is it ok to spend billions on a war which brought us no measurable rewards and decreased our image as the world power with our allies, but trying to help fellow americans is a terrible socialist agenda? The article also confuses a key concept of the obama agenda,"living wage". This is in no ways means the same as a "Guarenteed income." Obama is trying to make the conditions of our many poor people in this country somewhat better, he is not guarenting an equal income for all, as socialists call for, rather he is trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves. I am in no way trying to advocate that obama is the next great president or even fulfilling many of his campaign promises, but he is in no way trying to make america socialist. As for the Anneberg challenge, the program brought hundreds of millions of dollars to many much deserving private and public schools in chicago to help further educate young people, not to spread socialist ideas. And Finally as for the quote "Capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks equity", well democracy seeks equality for all and is a precondition for capitalism. The Obama programs are designed for equality, which is a nessecary condition for democracy. And just to chime in on the religous aspect. Our many of you so willing to bash Obama that you refer to him as the anti-christ? I am in no way trying to offend anyone but that is a childish assertion and amounts to little more than name calling, similar to elementary students. All aside I am open-mided and would love to read and debate any responses.
Davo
Well-known member
I realize that Bush was handed a balanced budget, but he also had a crisis hit (9/11) that was pretty huge. Part of the balanced budget was also due to an inflated and false economy and the reduction of the military. Congress also voted to go to what everyone calls "Bush's War", so people need to quit blaming him exclusively for it. Also, the problem with the banks was not started in the Bush Administration, it was started under Clinton, Bush even warned about it back in 2003. Congress has a lot more to do with the shape the country is in than any president. So much money gets wasted through pork and earmarks that it is mind boggling. I think that congressmen should have a term limit just like the presidency so that they can't make a career out of it. If Congress was forced to use the same services that they force us to use I promise you some things would be different in a hurry (Social Security and the new health care plan come to mind).
G
Guest
Guest
Well to start with you are right that Bush got the ball rolling concerning out deficit. He was a left leaning Republican from the start and got worse as his term went on. Bush at the end became even more socialistic with the bailouts. Government takeover of private business. He was wrong on that account for sure. Bush was wrong in many areas but he is no longer the POTUS. We can go back in time and blame him for all of our ills if we want. The unarguable fact right now is that the democrats have total control of the country. Anything that happens from now until the time we are able to remove them from office is their fault. Good or bad. You are right again when you said that Bush ran up a trillion dollar deficit. It took him 8 years to do it. Obummer has run up over three trillion in 7 months.
As far as helping poor people go we cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. Never have and never will. The poor will always be poor for the most part. We could give each and every one of the poor in this country a million bucks each and they would be back to broke in a very short time. The lottery has proven this time and time again.
I have said that I do not believe our president to be the antichrist. I do however believe that he is evil in a very pure form. I believe that anyone who supports abortion to be evil and if you support partial birth abortion you are worse yet. Obummer also supports embryonic stem cell research. This is nothing more than creating a human life in order to destroy it for selfish purposes. If this is not evil and straight from the pit of hell then please explain to me what is. Now you can argue that the embyionic stem cell research will aid doctors in treating various deseases but it has been around for several years in other countries and has YET to be proven to cure or even help treat any sickness or disease in any way.
There are a number of other reasons why this president is a socialist. I have only addressed the ones that you have asked about.
bigmike7688
New member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4
Davo I agree that 9/11 was a huge crisis, however, the money spent on retribution for this crisis has been ourageous. Special funds for torturing and secret prisons, money to democratize the Iraqi government who in no way wants anything to do with such a system, selling our government bonds to china to continue financing the war and then his strategy to fix the dwindling economy during his presidency was to hand out tax breaks to the rich. THese were Bush's plans which he passed through congress using the fear instilled in us by 9/11. Also the economy under Clinton was not false, our economy grew 3.6 percent, job growth was 2.5 million per year during his presidency and inflation was at its lowest in more than 30 years prior, our government had a surplus which was used to pay off our national debt, and the economy had the largest economic expansion in history. Bush and the republican congress took this growth and turned it around sending us to where we are now.
jon the fisherman
Well-known member
Actually, neither CIC had much to do with the economy. Clinton got to ride the ".com" bubble, which burst shortly before Bush was elected. Clinton sold secrets to the chinese, bombed Iraq because of an ececutive BJ, left a trail of dead people who could have givin up the Clinton's secrets, lied under oath, swindled people in whitewater....he was a real class act"lawyer"
outcaster
Well-known member
Good words bigmike, but I must correct you. The poster did not say that Obama is the anti-christ. (maybe airrusboy can clear that up for us, after all he is a Bible scholar trained in both Hebrew and Greek) Instead he said, (I am quoting here) the the President is" evil in a pure enough form as to be the right hand man of the antichrist and certainly a minion of Satan himself". That gets my vote for the best quote of the year on CFF. (not best as in good, but as in un-believable). I have made a couple of attempts on here using sacasm and absurdity (which went right over many heads), to point out that we as a society count on our Gov't do things, and assist us with things. Things like fight wars, make sure our food and water are safe, build roads and bridges, help take care of our elderly, and many, many others. And just because we as a Nation want our Gov't to do things for us, and with us, does not make us evil Socialists. Trying to reform, and re-structure a badly broken Healthcare system, hardly falls under the "Socialist" category. That word is now being used by the right as a buzz word, meant to stir up people. Although I truly enjoy this forum, I also understand that most of the opinions expressed here (Politics and Religion) are most likely not an accurate sampling of our Nation as a whole.
AirrusBoy
Well-known member
</p>
<font size="3"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font face="Verdana">(maybe airrusboy can clear that up for us, after all he is a Bible scholar trained in both Hebrew and Greek) - </font><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span class="shw">στ?ρι παραθ?ρου</span></font></font><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">/ <span class="shw">παρ?ας</span></font></font></p>
<span class="shw" /><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The term antichrist translated in Greek: <font face="Symbol" size="4">anticristoV <font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">anticristov</font></font>, which means "instead of Christ, andwascoined by the apostle John two thousand years ago, and used only fivetimes by the disciple with limited discussion in two of his letters found in1st John and 2nd John.The Biblical use of the termis very limited, but the notion ofthe "antichrist" is dealt with frequently and at length in the Bible.For example, the one-page letter of Jude, in which the term "antichrist" is not used but the allusion to such is very adamant and clear. </font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="3">In the Old Testament, the prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel provided a great deal of information about the antichrist. We learn where the antichrist will come fromwhat is revealed in the New Testament. </font></font><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="3">Daniel received a prophecy from God revealing that the antichrist will confirm a treaty guaranteeing Israel’s security for3 ½ years, after which the antichrist will set himself up in the Jewish Temple and proclaim that he is God. This abomination will trigger the Great Tribulation, which will last 3 ½ years. At the end of the Great Tribulation, Christ will return, establish His Kingdom on earth and destroy the evil antichrist. Initially, the antichrist will be Israel’s protector before he attempts destroy everyone who refuses to worship him. Daniel refers to the antichrist as "the leader who will come, the little horn, the beast and the stern faced king."In Daniel 11, he also refers to the antichrist as the king of the North. The king of the North and the land of the North is characterized bywhat Jeremiah calls the territory of the Assyria and Babylon. The Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonians in 626 B.C.The Assyrian capital of Asshur andBabylon were located in present day Iraq, These empires essentially comprised the same territory which included present day Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Essentially, Daniel tells us this is where the antichrist will come from.</font></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial" size="3">Over the years, and well before Obama, peopleclaimed that Hitler and others were the antichrist.</font></p>
</p>
</p>
</p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A</p>
Interesting piece on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. Watch the very end and Slick Willie's comments. </p>
</p>
</p>
jon the fisherman
Well-known member
If ya can't dazzle them with your brilliance....baffle'em with BS.
G
Guest
Guest
No but government takeovver of any private industry does fall into the category of socialism.
G
Guest
Guest
Here is a little something to add to this thread. Proves my point and there will be more.
