Searching "comments":
| # | Comment | Survey |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | I'd just follow my dog out.  | Besides at school, where else do you think there should be fire drills? |
| 12 | I think supermarkets would be fun. Or malls. Or sporting events. That'd be funny stuff to watch.
"Ok tonight at the Super Bowl half time event, we're going to exercise a fire drill..." | Besides at school, where else do you think there should be fire drills? |
| 13 | > I think it is interesting that 33 people have
> answered this survey yet only 24 people think > we should not murder people. Things that make you say, "Hmmm.." | Which of the Ten Commandments do you agree with? |
| 14 | My neighbor doesn't even have a donkey. | Which of the Ten Commandments do you agree with? |
| 15 |  | Which of the Ten Commandments do you agree with? |
| 16 | I have a USB modem from Verizon. There isn't a high speed option here in Alto - I couldn't even get cable TV if I wanted it. Well, I could get dish, but I don't watch enough TV to pay for it. | Internet Service At Home - How do you get it? |
| 17 | It is the first state of the union address that I did not watch in all of my adult life. I have no respect for the guy, or the office while he occupies it. I don't care what he said - because he's not going to follow through on any of it anyway. | What did you think of President Obama's State of the Union Address? |
| 18 | I wouldn't call it jamming him. My lack of respect for him has nothing to do with his ideas or solutions - even though I disagree with most of them. He's really far left, and I'm pretty far right. But even that has nothing to do with my feelings towards the man. I didn't agree with most of what Clinton stood for either, but I respected him, and when he was in office, I respected the office. Even with all of his antics. Still to this day if I was somewhere Clinton was and was able to shake his hand, I'd be honored to.
So it's not really about party lines. Or the fact that I think Obama is a socialist. What bugs me the most about him is that he is such a puppet. He can't speak unless he has a teleprompter - his impromptu speeches are filled with more 'Bush-isms' than dubya himself could muster. I mean he thanked himself last Easter for attending his party because the teleprompter screwed up. He read about 3 minutes into the speech before he even realized that it wasn't his speech! He doesn't give a flying F what he's saying - he's just the handsome good speaker that is controlled by the left wing. Nothing of what he says are his own words - I have no respect for him because I don't think he has any respect for me - an American citizen. I resent being talked down to. And as you say - the polarization is ultimately what is going to destroy our political system. And I agree. Politics drives me nuts. I'm conservative because I don't like the government in my pockets - I am better at running my business and spending my money than any government is. I say lower taxes and let the consumers show you what's important to spend money on - because they'll spend it on it. I have absolutely no respect for Obama. He's spineless. He cow tows to his party and special interest groups. And I know all politicians do this, but this guy has the audacity to rub it in our face and expect us not to notice. Hell he hasn't even stopped campaigning yet - someone should tell him he already won. My lack of respect for Obama honestly has nothing to do with his socialist views. I can tolerate differences in politics. Presidents only last at the maximum 8 years, and when you think about it, really don't get too much done. Give me term limits in Congress and I'll be really happy - they're the people to argue with over the policies of this nation. I'm losing track here. Ok, back to Obamaman. He's condescending. Arrogant. A dumb-ass. I think a lot of people voted for him on him ending the war. He didn't, and has no real plans to. I think a lot of people voted for him for a lot of reasons he has no real plans on working for. He says what the polls tell him to say, and acts how the party tells him to. If the guy had an original thought, maybe I'd listen. So this isn't about right and left, liberal or conservative, it's about the man (or lack there of) himself. And it's not about not giving him a chance. I have no choice, he's POTUS for at least three more years. Whether or not I choose to listen to his drivel is not going to change anything. The guy lies constantly, in your face, with a smile, and expects America and the world to just accept it. I mean I think the guy actually thinks we're stupid. That he's our savior or something. I can't stand his condescension. Clinton could say something that would have me trowing things at my TV but I still had respect for the man. Obama is a joke. A group leader from Chicago with no political experience has the balls to talk down to his constituents? So to sum it up - if the guy weren't such an butt-hole, I'd listen to him. | What did you think of President Obama's State of the Union Address? |
| 19 | > It's helpful that you're saying it has nothing
> to do with his views. I hate to do this Brian-like quoting thing, but you asked a lot of questions, so I'll just do some editing.  And ya know that does influence my opinion of him. He smiled as he shoved these policies down our throats telling us it was going to make it all better. It has only made things worse. Unemployment continues to be at staggering highs. We just spent what, about 30 grand per American citizen for this bail out - and he smiled as he did it. Can you imagine what the state of the economy would be like if he'd have mailed checks in the same amount to each one of us? Some would have spent it, buying cars for instance. Some would have saved it, in their banks for instance. Some would have paid off their back mortgages, saving all these foreclosures. Ok I'll get off my policy horse. Have you ever seen a movie where the bad guy is such a BAD guy that he's good at it? Anthony Hopkins comes to mind in Hannibal. The guy enjoyed being evil. And that's how I see Obama. He enjoys destroying all that is around him - and not taking any blame for it. Nothing is his fault. He's a year into his Presidency and he's still blaming Bush. Come on dude, take some responsibility - earn some respect! I mean he actually said the other day here, I'll Brian copy and paste a sec - Obama:Ten years ago we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon. Yet over the course of the past ten years the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and funded two wars without paying for any of it, all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs. As a result, when I first walked through the door the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion with projected deficits of eight trillion over the next decade. He voted for all of it. He voted for every spending bill since 2005. But now that he's President he's surprised by it all? Obama is spending money like a drunken sailor and still won't take responsibility for it. He doesn't take responsibility for anything. > Most of what you're saying seems to be general > stuff that all modern Presidents could be accused > of. You acknowledged this, but somehow Obama > is worse for you. Obama is much worse for me. Yeah I know all politicians lie. And they are mostly just dirt bags. But this guy is feeding us a crap sandwich with a smile on his face. The guy is evil, I'm tellin ya, he's evil. > > I hadn't heard of that Easter speech screw up. > But, is that really relevant? Is that reason > to hate the guy? No, but it's just an example of why I do not respect him. He cares so little about the American people that he doesn't even give them the decency of reading a speech before delivering it. Because he knows it doesn't matter what he says, he's the handsome black man, he can do anything. And don't read black man into that - I honestly don't care what color a person is. I care about the content of their character, to quote someone. And this guy doesn't have much character. > it Fox News that you hear about stuff like that? > Or conservative radio talk shows like Rush Limbaugh? Well I don't get cable or satellite, so I don't get Fox news. Just the ABC CBS NBC PBS stuff. I used to read our local newspaper, but they stopped putting the TV Guide in the Sunday edition to save money so I told em to screw off. The Today show is on as I type this, mostly because that's the channel I get most clearly. When I am in my barn or driving around in my truck I listen to AM local news chat shows. Mostly just because I like listening to people talk more than hearing the same crapty song over and over. I've listened to Rush, Sean Hannity and the like, but you can't take anything they say seriously either. They are as far right as Obama is left. And as you said somewhere in here, that's what is ridiculous - the far sides of either party are arguing leaving us in the middle to get the spray from the crap they're throwing at each other. So I guess you can say I listen to pretty much main stream media. I get some news off the internet as well - but only if I hear something on radio or tv and want to investigate further. > Also, my impression is that Obama is actually > very good at speaking on his own, unprompted. > In that GOP question and answer thing he was > unprompted. Obama at the GOP Q&A,"I suppose, uh, uh, the 500,000 jobs we lost in January before I was inaugurated, I -- I -- suppose that's my policy, too, right? That's what you'd say, huh? And then in February? Well, 600,000 more jobs that were lost. You guys probably say that's my policy, right? That's before my policy had even gone in place but you're blaming my policy, right, right, right?" He may be a good orator, but his words carry no weight. And when you read his words instead of listen to them, it's a different world. He can make anything sound good. Because he's evil. > You also mentioned that he talks down to people. > Maybe that's part of what's going on here. I > get the impression he's intelligent, but you feel > talked down to. Are these related, two sides > of the same coin? No. I don't think he gives the impression that he's intelligent. I feel like he's trying to sell me a used car. Picture the stereotypical used car salesman with the wink in his eye and the sparkle of his smile. It's not about Obama's intelligence - it's about his belief that the American people have none. It's not that he insults my intelligence personally, but he insults the country that I love every time he opens his mouth. I honestly think he hates this country - thats why he's slowly buying it so he can crap in it. >I remember Al Gore got accused > of that same thing. And, I think Bush beat him > partly because of it. Bush didn't talk down to > people. He had a more folksy way of speaking. > Did that appeal to you more? No, Bush looked like an idiot when he spoke. But at least he spoke to us, not at us. And on 9/12 I think he did an awesome job. But no, Clinton was a smooth speaker too. He could make anything sound good as well. But he wasn't destroying the country with a smile on his face. Obama actually enjoys destroying the country. I think it's his plan. > Can you think of a specific way in which Obama > has talked down? I just went to CNN's transcript of his SOU speech. I didn't have to read very far.... One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted, immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed. Huh? Are you flippin kidding me? The storm has only gotten bigger, stronger, and more ominous. He's spending money with all his buddies - he gave a car manufacturer to a union, tried to get the olympics in Illinois but that failed so lets spend a few billion in my old state to house Gitmo terrorists. Am I the only one not surprised? Leave the gitmo folks in gitmo. Simple. Anyway - "the worst of the storm has passed." It has? Where? >I do appreciate your reply regardless. Not a problem. I don't mind intelligent conversation you douche nozzle! | What did you think of President Obama's State of the Union Address? |
| 20 | > |> I mean I'm against giving
> |> ownership of private businesses to the government. > Such as the auto > |> industry. And I'm against giving ownership > of the financial sector > |> to the government. > > Obama has said he's against it too. He has been > forced into these bailouts. And, I believe him. I don't. These bail outs and czars only serve to broaden government control under the guise of helping people. > As I recall, there was a lot of resistance from > Obama over the GM bailout. GM begged for it for > weeks, maybe months. I say keep begging. Or start running your company correctly. Businesses fail every day. Tax payers can't be held responsible for bad decisions of a private company. If GM had gone out of business, another company would have formed.. that's the way it works. Capitalism works. It works better than any government agency (Post office / Fed Ex) Consumers decide what they want to buy. If someone is building a product at a price people won't pay, it won't sell. Simple. Now GM is owned by the government and the union which was slowly destroying it. A pickup truck costs $30k not because it costs that much to build it in materials, but because we pay ridiculous labor rates and retirement to the pick up truck builders. Hey Ford can turn a profit, even with its hands tied with the union labor - so could have GM. But why not get a few free billion? It's just government money. Which people forget is our money. So if GM is too big to fail, then where is the line drawn? What about my tiny little company? Somewhere in-between? I would have let GM go out of business. Or it could have gotten money from investors - which they cut out when they got rid of all their stock. Its a huge grip of power - I'm telling ya Obama is a socialist. And I don't just say that lightly. He really is - he's gobbling up more and more power every day. And laughing at us as he does. > > The financial sector bailout happened under Bush > as well. It seems particularly unfair to blame > Obama for that. I'll give Bush credit for the first one. Obama went a little crazy on the rest. > I think it boils down to the concern over what > will happen if these large corporate entities > were to fail. Many experts think the bad effects > from major failures could trigger a chain reaction > that undermines the entire economy. And, we're > talking biblical disaster if that happens. Experts schmexperts. Any 'expert' that advises anyone in Washington is in it for themselves. If, for example, GM were to pay a bunch of 'experts' to say it makes sense to give them a bail out... or if Gore needs 'experts' to defend global warming... or if Bush needs an 'expert' to bail out banks.... Everyone involved is on the take. > or, we can do something and at least we tried. See that's what Obama wants you to think. We need to try something. Bullcrap. America is/was an incredible country. Throwing good money after bad is not trying. It's padding the pockets of those in line. Want to try something? Remove the shackles from industry - get rid of this damn CAFE thing - let the automakers build cars that Americans want to buy. The consumer is what drives this economy. Or at least supposed to. If car makers make cars that get 5 miles to the gallon and pollute like crazy, people won't buy them. Or maybe they will. People vote with their money every day. And Obama doesn't like that - he wants control of that vote too. Thats why we have czars now. They have unchecked power. So much for checks and balances - that just gets in Obamas way. As he laughs down the hallway turning into the oval office. Reduce taxes. Simple. People have more money in their pocket, and they spend it. Economy goes up. Raising taxes and spending trillions on crappy companies that can't run themselves is counter productive. Now GM gets to build cars that the government wants. Yeah sure - let the best car win. Obama wants us to feel good - that spending our money like there is no end is good for us. It's not good for us. I feel sorry for todays newborns - their great great grand children will still be paying for this crap. But by then we probably won't be a free country anymore, so it won't matter. > I've tried to read about the economics myself > and I only partly understand them. They are complicated, > unfortunately. And, really, it's mostly theories > which are hard to prove. But, we do have the > one big event that many theories use, the Great > Depression. Many things went wrong back then > and I think much of the decisions that have been > made today are based on trying to learn from that > experience. The government was slow to react > to the Great Depression and most economists think > that made it worst and last longer. So what? I think a depression would be awesome. Make people take stock in what this nut is trying to do. We bounced back from the depression into times of great prosperity. Yeah it sucked - but we need it to suck so that people stop sucking off the system and get their asses to work. Give me a dang depression - I know I'll survive. > Another notable thing here is that most other > nations also did bailouts. It just shows that > it's what the general consensus was. Bush and > Obama didn't do anything unusual here. They did > what their advisors recommended. What they did is copy a philosophy that fails. We used to be an economic super power. Now we're owned by the communist Chinese. Aint that great? Fannie May and Freddy Mac used their bail out money to pay huge bonuses. That doesn't piss you off? I shouldn't have to pay taxes for the next 10 years as my bonus. Oh and I forgot. Take a look at GM today. They are falling apart. Ford is kicking butt. Why? Because Ford isn't run by the government so they don't have to cut any tape. Just another example of Obama failure to do anything right. But hey, he's trying. Bleh. > But, the smiles and such are more about > "it's going to be OK; we're strong and we'll make > it through this". Presidents have to be > cheerleaders. Of course they do. But we're standing on a plank in shark infested waters and he's cheering for us to keep walking. > I was expecting unemployment to be high for a > long time. I think if you collect unemployment you should have to be drug tested and show up in a large room every day. I'm going to occupy 40 hours of your time if you're collecting my tax money. But that's nothing to do with Obama - it's just one of those things that ticks me off. But it feeds right into why Obama is who he is - he NEEDS people dependent on the government to survive. It's where he gets his power - on people's laziness and dependency. > But, stocks have actually > risen almost back to where they were and they've > been stable (not up and down so much). I still > think it's possible we could see another sudden > down turn, but maybe not. Yes and no. Banks still are not lending. People are still keeping money in their wallets - for that rainy day. And Obama isn't giving people any confidence to spend. He ought to start by doing something he says he's going to do. > Obama was handed a tough situation. If he stubbornly refused to do any bailouts, > he'd be blamed for that too. That comes with the keys to the white house. Message to Mr.O, "Quit whining about it and get something done." > US population is roughly 300 million. > The economic stimulus was 900 billion. > That's about $3,000 per person. That's every man woman and child. Legal and illegal. A quick google gave me 2003 stats... Here is the information IRS is reporting for fiscal year 2003: Total Individual Returns filed 130,728,360 Total Estate & Trust Income Tax Returns filed 3,688,043 Total Partnership Returns filed 2,380,618 Total Corporate Returns Filed 5,890,821 Total Estate Tax Returns Filed 91,679 Total Gift Tax Returns Filed 287,456 Total Employment Tax Returns Filed 29,916,033 Total Tax Exempt Organization Returns filed 789,381 Total Excise Tax Returns filed 812,483 I'm not sending a check to someone that doesn't pay tax, man. > You really don't like when he smiles, eh? What the hell has he got to smile about? Our country is in trouble, and he laughs it off. > That's a little extreme. I really still wonder > how you got to this point. You say some really > extreme things about Obama. > > This is the kind of thing that worries me. I'm > worried that some people will really believe it > and there will be assassination attempts or just > general violence. I really feel that it's important > for everyone to tone down the language, on both > sides. But, I really don't know how it will happen. > It seems to just be escalating. It's escalating because he's escalating it. He keeps up his class envy by saying that tax cuts were for the rich. You're rich if you make $40k a year by the way. But anyway, after he complains about 'the rich' he turns around and hands them trillions. Where is the clear message there? Simple: I need poor people to depend on me. We need to get everyone off of Obamas nipples. > That was in 2003 during a period > of Republican majority under Bush, before Obama > was a US Senator. > > I remember Bush had a big smile on his face when > he signed that bill, did that bother you at all? > (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/politics... > ) I liked the idea. Seniors would get better coverage from private insurance than they will from medicare. > My understanding is that Medicare is something > a majority of Americans like, especially old people. > Old people vote a lot. And that's all you need to know. Medicare is a vote getter. > From my perspective, I think that bill was Bush > and Republican's greatest betrayal and really > just undermines most of what he said about smaller > government and less taxes. They helped fudge over > our future with that bill. Do you agree with > that at all? You have to if you believe what > you're saying about government staying out of > our pockets. I agree that he was trying to overhaul medicare. In the above article you read the Pelosi, H.R. Clinton and others were all against this bill. Why? Because it was making government smaller, not bigger. It was freeing people to get better coverage from private industry. That's bad for the dependencycrats. > > I guess the only thing that was sort of different > about this 2003 Medicare expansion is that they > didn't fund it. Bush cut taxes and increased > spending. It's hard for me be see any good in > that. Reallly? >And, I think Obama has some right to blame > Bush and the Republicans who voted in all that > spending plus tax cuts. It was just irresponsible. > You have to agree with that on some level! Nope, when you cut taxes, people have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the government makes more money. Maybe not on income taxes, but sales tax, gas tax, the damned luxury tax, etc. If you put money in peoples pockets they spend it. That drives the economy. > I don't agree. Obama got into it in the State > of the Union speech. He talked about the situation > he was handed when he took office (worst economy > in 70 years, worst deficits, etc.) WAH! Regan wasn't handed anything to brag about, and turned it around without a stimulus package. > forced to do the stimulus because of the economy. That's what he wants you to believe. When you see the word stimulus think scam. > And, he talked about why it was important. It's important to him. And he'll polish it so you think it's good for you. All it does is give government more control and you and I less. Not good. I think our fore fathers are rolling in their graves. > Things are bad right now, but there not as bad > as they were back in the 1930s. They had major > bank failures. Depositors lost all their money. > The stock market crashed and stayed down for > a long time. There were bread lines and massive > amounts of homeless (hobos, etc.). Admittedly, > it's unfair to compare too much since times have > just changed. But, how bad off are we if most > people have mobile phones and all kinds of crap. Yeah but look at the industrial revolution. We kicked ass after the depression. Then after Regan, we're going down again. When I don't have any money I'm smart enough not to spend any. I don't need to borrow in hopes that if I keep throwing good money after bad that something will change. The definition of insanity thing - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I don't think most Americans are bad off - I think they're scared. > |> He cares so little about the American people > that he doesn't even give them > |> the decency of reading a speech before delivering > it. > > Yeah, that just seems unfair. I mean, Reagan > even screwed up some speeches, especially near > the end of his term. It's not about screwing up a speech. Or stumbling through them as Bush does. It's about not even realizing you're reading the wrong speech until you thank yourself for attending your own party. Meaning, he doesn't even give us the simple courtesy of reading his speech before delivering it. You know, so he could be sure he's about to say things he believes in. Puppet boy just gets up there and starts reading. Yeah that makes me feel like he's got a grip. > Well, there goes that theory. It seemed likely > that we just had different sources for our news > and bias was a factor. I do believe NBC news > has a liberal bias. All news has a bias. As you said - you have to be smart enough to take in the news and make your own decision. People that blindly follow any outlet shouldn't be able to vote. And I think there should be a test on voting day. Like the stupid 7 question test you have to take to get a drivers license. Simple questions, like who is the current vice president? Who is your congressman? What is the capitol of the USA? Name the three branches of government. Stuff that a 5th grader could answer. But if you don't get them right, you don't vote. Give me dag-burned educated vote - not one where we load busses and give free coffee for. > > got a point. It's unfair for the GOP or anyone > to blame the deficit and unemployment on Obama. > He was handed a steaming pile of crap. It was > a pile of crap that needed money too. No it needed jobs. And money, as we know now, doesn't create jobs, just bonuses. Create jobs by taking shackles off of private industry. Let business grow, don't tax the money they re-invest in themselves. Give the working man a chance by letting him be the best working man he can. Throwing money at it isn't going to do anything other than make some folks rich. Give me a tax credit if I hire someone. Let me build a product that people want. My business will grow, I'll stimulate the economy through my employees and my self, and I'll hire more people. And that's the way it works for every business. But now we have czars that tell me I can't do this and I can't do that - so now I have to cut 50 miles of red tape to grow. So I don't. No, money isn't going to solve this. Cutting taxes for business will. > Do you think McCain would have done things much > differently? Maybe you don't like McCain either, > but I think he has been good in many cases (except > picking Palin). He was in favor of the bank bailout. > I'm sure he would have passed some stimulus bill > as well. We'll never know. I didn't like McCain. I like Duncan Hunter. Romney would have been ok. McCain was almost as much of a puppet as Obama. > I guess it comes down to trust. You don't trust > him, or worse you think everything he says is > a lie or a deception. I don't think it. I know it. If you google Obama Lies, watch out. The Washington Post for example. > Anyway, with Obama, I didn't get that impression. > I have some issues with some of what he says > and sometimes how he says it, but it's all just > sort of typical politician stuff. He doesn't > stand out as better or worse in that respect. Oh I do man, I do. I'll give him one thing, he's got balls as big as church bells, because when what goes around comes around he better be in an armored suit. > But, he does seem intelligent when he talks about > an issue and is able to touch upon various aspects > of the problem and sometimes even bring them together > into some way of looking at it and often has a > solution based on that. That makes me think he's > intelligent and honestly trying to solve problems. > I may not agree with his solutions, but I'd never > say he's stupid or doesn't care or that he's trying > to do harm. "That makes me think he's intelligent and honestly trying to solve problems." That's exactly what he wants you to think. That's his gig, man. He wants everyone to think that he's in control, it's all going to be ok, just don't mind me while I destroy your capitalist society and tell you its a good thing. > It's interesting that you've mentioned his smile > a number of times now. If he smiled less, maybe > you'd like him more? I would. Because maybe I'd think he's taking something seriously. > Yeah, I was going to mention Clinton. Didn't > he have that nickname, "Slick Willy". But he > didn't bother you like Obama? I still wonder > what the difference is. Clinton isn't a socialist. And even though I don't agree with a lot of what Clinton did, I'd re-elect him today. He at least had a brain. I'd break the rules and exchange Billy for Hussein any freakin' day. > Again, I wonder how you could be at this point > with Obama. Destroying the country is very extreme > thing to be saying. I don't see how you can justify > it. From my perspective, he's only been around > for a year and much of what he's done, he didn't > have much choice about. He had tons of choices. So he chose to do the liberal thing and grow the government to a size that if you told me 16 years ago could happen I'd laugh in your face. The government owns banks?(and therefore our mortgages) Auto makers? HUGE industry is government controlled. We're getting closer and closer to Marxism man, and we gotta understand that. > I take it you were against Obama before he took > office? Of course I was. He's a leftist. But I had no idea he could be this freakin bad. I was nervous when Clinton took office, but we did pretty well under Billy. I figured Obama would be the same. How bad can he screw it up I said to myself. Well he's single handedly dismantled the checks and balance system with Czars. He's sold our country to foreign nations. (Who for some reason think that their money should give them a little leverage in policy making, strange, eh?) I mean we're in trouble here. > Gitmo is a real problem and I think it's fair > to blame Bush for that as well. Our allies have > a major problem with Gitmo and I think they have > a point. We picked some guys up in a foreign > country based on sketchy evidence. Now we've > held them for several years. They got no due > process, no rights. Some maybe well be innocent. > We had German prisoners of war, but we let them > go home after a few years. It's just a bad situation. > Keeping them in Gitmo is not a good option either. Well I feel safer in an airplane having Gitmo. Those people didn't give our soldiers due process when they chopped their heads off. Terrorism isn't something to take lightly, so neither are terrorists. Oh great, now they're going to come here and get sleezy lawyers who will get paid with more foreign money and walk because the glove doesn't fit. Then we're to act surprised when they attack us. Due process for terrorists my ass. > Like I said, that's the same BS that any President > has to say in a State of the Union. Bush said > all kinds of wonderful things in his state of > the union speeches too, then our economy went > to Hell. > Our Economy went to hell when we were attacked on 9/11. We were fat and happy 9/10. Then a wake up call. Markets crashed. People stopped spending money. And for a minute or maybe three, Americans became patriotic. Then forgot. But anyway, we were attacked, and we had to fight back. On 9/12 everyone wanted to fight back. But then, thanks to wonderful politics, we couldn't just go in there and kick ass, we had to give them all due process I suppose. They didn't care about killing innocent people, but we do for some reason. We are whimps, and the terrorists know it. Bomb a few things, what's Obama gonna do? Or what can he do? Nothing, really. Spend a bunch of money on a war. We could have made a statement with just a few bombs on 9/13. You want more of where that came from? Strike us again, I dare ya. But now our hands are tied, we have to worry about dirt bags with 'rights' that WE give them. They could give a crap about ours. We sure do care about theirs though. We've been at war for so long because it just isn't a fair fight. Whew. This is some long posting man. Have a nice day. | What did you think of President Obama's State of the Union Address? |
