TexasCHLforum.com

{Got this in an email from a friend this morning...}

If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt, which had taken more
than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
years, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never
even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the
United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration,
would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would
you think him an idiot?

If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?

If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America ?

If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities?

If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment?

If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have ever approved.

If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 21 months -- so you have that much time to come up with an answer.

IF you don't help to "get out the vote" in 2012, then you have no one to blame should the destruction of this nation continue...

{Found it interesting -- mods delete is too controversial for the forum.}

Pug wrote: IF you don't help to "get out the vote" in 2012, then you have no one to blame should the destruction of this nation continue...

We have only ourselves to blame. We = Voters (and eligible non-voters)
This guy's "plan" was obviously poo before he got elected. How so many people got duped is still a sad mystery to me.

We have become a nation unable to think critically and independently.

...there are those who care nothing for our country, much less their fellow man...they will vote for whoever comes bearing gifts...even though those "gifts" lead them back into a much worse slavery than they have ever known...they haven't learned that there is no such thing as a free lunch...or housing...or a cellphone...or .... ...

What amazes me is a close friend of mine is still infatuated with BHO. He and I don't/won't talk politics because we are such polar opposites on politics. He and another friend get on Facebook and have a debate/argument on politics like they did today. The Republican friend has a daughter that lives in NYC that is VERY liberal. She got into the FB fray by stating how proud she was to have voted for BHO and thinks he is doing a great job and can't wait until 2012 to vote for him again.

I just don't get it...

A lot of this is bull, or had been done by previous Presidents. Some of it I couldn't agree more. Now all the republicans have to do is nominate someone who isn/t trying to fight a culture war, or one that advocates neo-conservative social engineering I might get on board.

My only question is whether the collapse is already in progress.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?

RoyGBiv wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?

...for the "unenlightened" such as myself...could you further explain these statements? As a religious man, should I assume you want me gone? What exactly is "neo-conservative social engineering"? Help me out here. Please.
Dave

TexasFlash wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?

...for the "unenlightened" such as myself...could you further explain these statements? As a religious man, should I assume you want me gone? What exactly is "neo-conservative social engineering"? Help me out here. Please.
Dave

I see it as anytime the neo-cons are trying to push their morals on everyone else through laws. I have no issue with religion but it has it's place, in church, your home and your heart. I do not need anyone else morals imposed on me through force of law. An example would be an Idaho lawmaker who introduced a bill that would make pre-martial sex illegal.

RoyGBiv wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?

If we had not had the religious right you would not be carrying a gun today.

jmra wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: neo-conservative social engineering

yes, yes... this is a huge problem.
Another example of politicians (and voters) failing to be constrained by the Constitution.

We need another generation for the religious right to die off before Republican candidates can stop pandering to them.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.

What to do?

If we had not had the religious right you would not be carrying a gun today.

Our agendas overlap, for sure.
Should I accept prayer in public schools as my Thank You?

Before things get too spun up here... I'd like to apologize (sincerely) for an offhand comment that I see can definitely be construed in a way I had not intended... At the risk of jumping out of the pan and into the fire.... Let me try to clarify...

As Loaded has said above, the issue for me is with folks who bring religious and moral tenets to law-making. Yes, religion provides a compass/guide for many (as it does for me), but I do not vote in order to promote candidates who will advance any religious agenda. My vote is for candidates who will advance my Constitutional agenda. While there is overlap between the two, neither is entirely a subset of the other.

For example: I am in favor of Civil Unions for homosexual partners.

From a religious perspective, my religion is against this. But from my own moral perspective, I find it difficult that in America, two people who have decided to live their lives together in love and peace do not enjoy the protections of our laws. For example, if one partner becomes ill, the other does not have any legal rights to make care decisions for the other. Yes, the partners can fill out a legal document giving such authority to the other, but, why should this be necessary and, what critical legal morass cannot be anticipated and planned around for these partners? Why should they be subject to having to guess ahead while my wife and I enjoy well established law.? (yes.. there are MANY objections and concerns that people have about Civil Unions... Adoption is probably the biggest concern for me... Please let's not argue Civil Unions here, this is just an example of one place where I would not vote according to my religion)

As difficult as it is sometimes to separate my religious beliefs from my constitutional actions, I feel as though it is part of my duty to do so. I can practice my religion at home, in church, and of course I remain guided by these beliefs when I cast a vote, but as an American I feel bound to the First Amendment first, when I'm standing in the voting booth.

I don't know that I've done much of a job explaining my concerns for religion in law, but there you have my feeble attempt. Just because our religious beliefs say one thing does not give any of us the right to legislate that morality on others. My religion is strong enough to accept that others prefer to follow a different path, peaceably.

Unfortunately, a GOP candidate cannot win the party nomination without winning at least a substantial portion of folks who vote "religious beliefs first". Then they get held back in the general election by the promises they made to win over the GOP far Right. I suppose that would have been a better way to put it earlier.

Apologies again for any offense from my earlier comment and for this hijack..
[/hijack]

"I see it as anytime the neo-cons are trying to push their morals on everyone else through laws." and exactly how does this compare to the liberals pushing their lack of morals through legislation? You do not want my morals and that is your right, just understand that many people do not want the lefts lack of morals. Although the left will never accept that so they come up with negative terms such as neo-con to make themselves feel superior although they are the ignorant minority that believes in taking from those who produce and giving to the lazy and professional takers who work the system...........

Salty1 wrote: exactly how does this compare to the liberals pushing their lack of morals through legislation?

While I might argue with the Left agenda stemming from a "lack of morals", I would certainly agree that both extremes are not in the best interests of this country.

To add to what others have said, There are plenty of people in the younger generation who are smart enough to be extremely conservative fiscally, but don't think we should be legislating religious tenants and social conservatives can tend to steer those like me towards the Libertarian party or people like Ron Paul.

I'm all about small govt, and want the Republican party to be focused on reducing the scope and power of govt as well. But some republicans REALLY don't get it. In addition to my disliking Sen Ogden for his pedantic and ridiculous arguments against and opposition to campus carry, when I attended a Tea Party rally in College Station in 2009, Sen Ogden got up and spoke about abortion and prayer in schools. In other words, he wasn't concerned about the influence and power the federal and state govts have in our lives, he just wanted to use that power for stuff HE believed in instead.

I'm sorry, but when we're borrowing so much money we will never pay it off and endangering the fiscal security of ourselves and our progeny, we should be talking about tax cuts and spending cuts. NOT social issues. I don't care, they're not as vitally important to me as fiscal issues.

As for things like same sex marriage, what part of small govt is involved with working to get national defense of marriage acts passed? I understand why churches are opposed to same sex marriage, and no church should ever be forced to recognize or perform a same sex marriage if it is against their church's teachings. Not sure why a civil union type solution wouldn't work though. Legal recognition of a few basic rights should have nothing to do with religion of any kind.

Many younger people, myself included know gay people who are in stable, healthy monogamous relationships and have been so for years. The negative attitudes some hold towards any sort of legal protections for these people makes younger conservatives like myself really .

Just my .02 on the matter.

Pug wrote:
really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

You hit the nail on the head!
He has been "groomed" since childhood for the position he holds and has no clue what he is doing is wrong.

His Czars control him based on the Democratic Parties agenda (GOVT CONTROL).