"Organizing for America"

[Dave Holquist]

Has anyone seen this "new organization" crap?

This week Barack Obama announced Organizing for America (OFA), the new group that will work alongside the President to support the agenda we fought so hard for.

Here's the link to the video and sign-up page (now, don't everyone rush over there and enlist in the Obama youth corps lol): http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/neworganization

The Messiah wants you! Okay, so who's signing up? :rolleyes:

[NJWoodsman]

He's the President, not the messiah. Get used to it. Maybe YOU should sign up, so you can contribute something besides sarcasm.

[Dave Holquist]

NJW-
Gee, thanks for that great piece of advice. I forgot that I'm supposed to fall into lockstep with our new President and his followers (kinda like you dems did when GWB took office 8 years ago, right?). Now a little piece of advice for you: try not to lose your ability to critically evaluate BHO's decisions - in no way is he infallible.

[raisins]

Isaiah Berlin was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin

[raisins]

Ya know..no matter how much of an idiot I thought Bush was..I never wanted him to fail because so went the country. I think that those on the right periphery want Obama to fail. That's very sad and unpatriotic.

[recurve1]

I dont want any harm to come to Obama, i hope he has a change of heart on a lot of issues. As far as failing , there's no other way it will happen, because liberalism will fail naturaly , look at the last 20 years. Does'nt really matter who is president, Bush wasted more money than Bill Clinton did. Although i would rather have a real conservative in office , like Chuck Baldwin, i pray for Obama everyday.

[Bowcephalus]

"I think that those on the right periphery want Obama to fail. That's very sad and unpatriotic."
I agree with you Raisins. It is indeed both sad and unpatriotic for you to think such things about the folks who are right in this country.

[CarolinaBob]

Politicos they all suck, "the song remains the same"

[recurve1]

Raisins, no disrespect but have you ever read any writtings by our founding fathers? Do you believe the constitution is a document we should hold to? I'm not arguing repub. or demo., im just curious if you realize what happens when you ignore it? Results--- slavery, abortion, failed goverment welfare[ corporaye and social], higher taxes , wars faught unconstitutionaly[Iraq, fairness doctrine, overall freedoms deminish.. Like i said both parties are guilty-- it's just the democrats are more blatant about it.

[Dave Holquist]

Ya know..no matter how much of an idiot I thought Bush was..I never wanted him to fail because so went the country. I think that those on the right periphery want Obama to fail. That's very sad and unpatriotic.

So are you suggesting that I want him to fail just because I didn't vote for him or won't follow his decisions without question? Now that BHO is President, any sort of debate or difference in opinion about his policies is "very sad and unpatriotic?" Is that what you really believe?

[Wingman]

As far as failing , there's no other way it will happen, because liberalism will fail naturaly...

ahh, wasn't Jesus a liberal?

[recurve1]

Wingman , you're not serious?

[Bowcephalus]

Naw Wing, the leftists include the likes of Castro and Che,the modern idols of you and your ilk......Jesus would never embrace the depravity of your leftist pantheon of humanist gods....You are not much a student of history I see....

[Wingman]

First, lets start with the dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative (many of you seem to confuse communist and liberal). The definitions are from Merriam-Websters on-line dictionary:

Main Entry: 1 lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample , full
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives


Main Entry: 1 con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1: preservative
2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1): of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2): progressive conservative
3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4: of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism


So, if we use these definitions, was Jesus more of a conservative or liberal?
(Sorry for getting further off topic Dave.)

[Free Range]

Wingman, either a) you are completely ignorant of what the term Liberal means in today’s politics (here in America), or, b) you are ashamed of it and want to deflect, run, and hide, in some way thinking you can fool those few that don’t really know. (me thinks it’s the latter.)

Oh and to answer your question Jesus was and is conservative. Here’s proof,

Love they neighbor but hate the sin (conservative ideal).

Hold people accountable for their actions, but allow forgiveness (conservative ideal). Become prosperous and share (on your own accord) with others. (conservative ideal, many studies show conservatives give more to charities then libs).

Your definition:

marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

I would say Jesus holds on to tradition, (going to church, believing in god, all that stuff in the Bible you know)

Those are just a few examples.


Liberal ideals Jesus does not hold with. Abortion, homosexuality, welfare for those that wont pull their weight, covet the success of others, denial of God, humanism.

[Steve]

I hope that most of the programs he seeks to impliment fail to be enacted.

I will not support his attempt on these. If that means I am wishing for him to fail and that somehow(?) makes me unpatriotic, then so be it.

Steve

[NJWoodsman]

What conservative idealogues are missing is that Obama is moving beyond the culture wars of conservative vs. liberal. Organizing means he taps into a base that was not being represented by our system. That's why he raised so much money in small amounts from individuals, and why so many new voters came out for him. Much as I despise what sanctimonious right wing politicians have led us to in the last 8 years, I certainly don't trust the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank to fix it, either. If the people's voices are finally heard, maybe the us and them finger pointing will stop.

[Bowcephalus]

"maybe the us and them finger pointing will stop." Wrong again NJ....That is exactly what our founders did not want. Political debate is the hallmark of a free republic. This B.S. about everybody just getting along is the propaganda of the totalitarian state and it's doctrine of central planning. Our system was designed to gridlock government with checks and balances.

[Bowcephalus]

Wingman, in the context of our discussion your dictionary reference is simplistic and absolutely deviod of historical context. Narrow minded to say the least and in fact an attempt to mislead assuming you have noticed any political debate in the last 100 years. If misdirection is not your motivatioin you should study history a bit more before you resort to such inadequate references. Start with H.G. Wells' call to progressives to become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis" in a speech to the Young Liberals at Oxford.

You do know a bit of background on Wells don't you?

[NJWoodsman]

"maybe the us and them finger pointing will stop." Wrong again NJ....That is exactly what our founders did not want. Political debate is the hallmark of a free republic. This B.S. about everybody just getting along is the propaganda of the totalitarian state and it's doctrine of central planning. Our system was designed to gridlock government with checks and balances.

You left out the first part of my sentence, "If the people's voices are heard". That includes YOU. I don't know where you get this totalitarian state stuff from, people can have differences, work to get along, and still accomplish things. It's when argument becomes the point, not the process to come to consensus, that we fail collectively. Your guy lost, and there's a new sheriff in town. That doesn't mean you are out of the picture. Go get active in whatever cause you believe in, or write a letter to your Senator/congressman. And give the new guy a chance.

[Wingman]

I would say Jesus holds on to tradition, (going to church, believing in god, all that stuff in the Bible you know)

Those are just a few examples.

Liberal ideals Jesus does not hold with. Abortion, homosexuality, welfare for those that wont pull their weight, covet the success of others, denial of God, humanism.


...sorry guys dealing with a leaking in the main water supply line to the house (Gods revenge?), so only time for a few brief comments.

Jesus completely dissed the religious tradition into which he was born and personally subscribed to--to such a degree it played a large part in the crucifixion. The actions of someone who is "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions"? Doesn't sound like it to me. Also, I don't know if it's occurred to many of you, but the founder father's of the USA were also radical liberals. Finally, why would I subscribe to the definition of "liberal" that fundamentalist developed to disparage it?

[Bowcephalus]

"Your guy lost, and there's a new sheriff in town."

Wrong again NJ.
My gal lost.

"If the peoples voices are heard" is irrelevant in your proposition unless you are of the opinion that all "the people" have the same view.
The election was not an end to dissent. I get the "totalitarian state stuff" from every governmant in the history of the last 100 years who implemented the principles you claim to embrace.It is what happened. You would do well to learn the recent history of your own political philosophy if you are going to attempt a defense of it here.

[recurve1]

Bow is right, if you dont have a standard [constitution] to govern by, then the result will be anything goes. ONE MORE TIME--- our nation is SUPPOSE to be republic, NOT A DEMOCRACY. You have freedom of debate and change, unless that change violates the constitution. Some of you should just come out and say it--- you dont like our constitution and you want to see a more SOCIALIST STATE, as i said before i have'nt seen a lot of real conservatives lately in Washington. WINGMAN, Jesus was TRUTH, conservative principals just happen to line up more with biblical principals. I'm not going to argue about the bible , but FREERANGE said it as good as it could be explained. You have to put scripture in context as a whole, not pick out certain ones. Jesus is not a republican or democrat, but if you study his word you will see the truth, i dont base what i believe to be right or wrong based on any political party.

[Bowcephalus]

"Finally, why would I subscribe to the definition of "liberal" that fundamentalist developed to disparage it?"
Because it was developed by the liberals themselves,through their own words and actions not by conservatives as you suggest. The record is replete with such evidence.

Recognize these two?

Your political philosophy has a history.

You own it.

[Bowcephalus]

"Go get active in whatever cause you believe in, or write a letter to your Senator/congressman. And give the new guy a chance."...I cannot do as you suggest.

Only a confused purpose could manifest such behavior.

To comply with the former discredits the latter.

And that is my point.

[NJWoodsman]

"Wrong again NJ.
My gal lost."- Bowcephalus, sorry you were a Hilary supporter, I don't like her either, but at least she can help in her new job :)
As for getting involved and giving the new guy a chance, well, democracy isn't for everybody. It's a little complex, it means you don't always get your way and you have to listen to people who may not agree with you. But if you go away, it makes it that much easier for the rest of us.

[recurve1]

REPUBLIC , or i thaught we were a REPUBLIC. Maybe i've been wrong all along.

[Bowcephalus]

"But if you go away, it makes it that much easier for the rest of us."
.....Classic totalitarian fascism defined.

[Wingman]

REPUBLIC , or i thaught we were a REPUBLIC. Maybe i've been wrong all along.

Recurve, here's a summary on democracy and republics:

Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly.

And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic. What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefor, a kind of republic. Self-appointed governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies and juntas are not republics. However, this still allows for a wide spectrum. The classic is the Roman Republic, in which only a tiny percentage of citizens, members of the nobility, were allowed to vote for the Senators, who made the laws and also acted as Rome's supreme court. Most people would say that Rome was a Republic, but not a democracy, since it was very close to being an oligarchy, rule by the few. Although the Roman Republic was not a dictatorship (until Augustus Caesar grabbed power), it did not allow for rule of the people. In both theory and practice the Soviet Union, that late evil empire, was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members

[Bowcephalus]

As for letter writing and such, I sent the following to the good Republican from Georgia just last night."I supported Palin. Regarding your own comments concerning free speech and open dissent via talk radio, you Sir are out of line. It is not for you to suggest that we who support Republican Conservative principles should "back off". It is rather for you to as a leader to stand up against this unseemly, feel good, public love affair with those who on principle seek to undermine the very principles of this Republic. If the RNC wishes my continued support, Y'all better grow a pair.
Respectfully,..............."
Having been in considerable good company in so doing, I recieved this reply and similar on the air today.....

Congressman Phil Gingrey, MD (R-GA) made the following statement in response to an article that ran in Politico Newspaper about comments he made regarding conservative commentator, Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Leadership:

"Because of the high volume of phone calls and correspondence received by my office since the Politico article ran, I wanted to take a moment to speak directly to grassroots conservatives. Let me assure you, I am one of you. I believe I was sent to Washington to fight for and defend our traditional values of smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the lives of the unborn. In my six years in Washington, I have led the charge on many of these issues. In fact, in 2008 The National Journal ranked me the #1 most conservative Member of the House of Representatives.

As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off. I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent. I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.

Now more than ever, we need to articulate a clear conservative message that distinguishes our values and our approach from those of liberal Democrats who are seeking to move our nation in the wrong direction. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans—myself included—turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination. At the end of the day, every member of the conservative movement, from our political commentators and thinkers to our elected officials, share an important and common purpose in advancing the cause of liberty, reigning in a bloated federal government, and defending our traditional family values."

[Dave Holquist]

So back on track, gentlemen.

What is the real purpose of this "new organization"? The campaign and election are over. Is it just for continued milking of money from the starry-eyed masses or what? Or will this be the beginning of the civilian security corps BHO has advocated? I was thinking about joining so I could get the inside scoup but figured that I'd get busted for being a "non-believer".

[Redbow]

Rush limbaugh is a defender of traditional family values lol.
Give me a break, he has how many broken marriages, doctor shops for drugs
Then Jets of to the Dominican republic with a heap of Viagra.
Thats a conservatie role modle?????????
Plus he is not even an elected gop face, just a voice on the radio!
It is all to sad for words lol.

[recurve1]

Wingman, because the Sovirt Union had the word REPUBLIC in their nations title means nothing. If a rat is in the cookie jar does' nt make it a cookie. America was formed as a Republic, with a form of democracy. It was not the founding fathers intent for a full democracy [mob rules], our legislators are to hold to the constitution. They are elected by the people, but they are not to pass any laws that violate the constitution, nor are activist judges to LEGISLATE from the bench [abortion] . We have been moving in the last 40 years to MOB rules wich equals ANARCHY. Did the constitution allow for slavery? NO. That is what happens when they dont hold yo the constitution.

[Wingman]

Did the constitution allow for slavery? NO. That is what happens when they dont hold yo the constitution.

You've said this several times and it just isn't historically accurate. For example read Article 4, Section 2 (which has been superceded by the 13th amendment, ratified in 1865):

Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)

[Bowcephalus]

Did the constitution allow for slavery? NO.
....Actually it did....

[recurve1]

Maybe i'm wrong but i dont remember reading anything when our country was formed that mentioned it. I know it was ratified , but it says each PERSON IS ENDOWED BY CERTAIN ENALIABLE RIGHTS? That was written in the 1700's. But i do know most of the people who faught against it realized that it was wrong, and each person [ whatever race] was created by God. In the first amendment it gives rights to YOU AND YOUR PROSTERITY [ offspring] , which should debunk slavery and abortion. IM not a constitutional lawyer but i do know there's no greater atrosity in our time than abortion.

[Wingman]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

This is from the Declaration of Independence, authored in large part by Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner. Makes you wonder what exactly it meant to him at the time. Did he see it as an ideal to aspire to that society wasn’t fully ready to accept or did he see blacks as not fully human, a common belief at the time?

Even though the full significance of the concept wasn’t seen when it was written, that realization shouldn’t diminish its power and influence in today’s world. It’s something we should be inspired by and aspire to support in our Government. To me, that means detainees in Gitmo (and elsewhere) should be treated humanly and fairly, given due process, and the outcome accepted, even if it means reduced safety. It means conferring the same *civil* recognition and benefits on all couples.

To take Dave’s thread completely into the swamp, the issue of abortion really challenges our interpretation of the concept because the two most fundamental rights: Life and Liberty are placed in conflict. I’m pretty sure that if I needed a kidney transplant to not die and Bowcephalus had two healthy kidneys, could get by fine with just one, and was the only matching donor in the world, *all* of you would say that the Government still can’t force Bow to give me a kidney and that I’ll just have to accept my death (that said, I’m sure he’d volunteer it). His right to Liberty trumps my right to Life. How is this situation different than a woman choosing to not undergo the risk and permanent physiological alterations that come with pregnancy? Does she not have the same legal right of control over her body that Bow does? Why is the fetus’ Right to Life considered stronger than an adult’s? How would God view the two situations differently?

[recurve1]

God say's ' Woe to him that sheds innocent blood', it's true i'm not a well educated man, but the bible is very clear where God stands on the FETUS. I'm not going to argue with about it, but what choice is there ? For whom? abortion is murder. Does'nt really matter what i think or anyone else for that matter, it's what God says that counts. You see there is a such thing as absolute truth wether we want to admit it or not . A certain truth is true not because we believe it, it is true wether we believe it or not. IN other words it was true ALL ALONG ,it did'nt BECOME truth because we believe it. The trouble i have with liberal ideals is that while you would fight for the right of a terrorist that wants to destroy America, you condone the taken of an unborn life. By the way it is the childs life the mother chooses to take NOT her own. And i know the old liberal arguement THOU SHALT NOT KILL directing that scripture to warefare, in the bible King DAVID was never condemed for the lives he'd taken in warefare, he was condemed for the murder of Uriah. I'll leave it to you all now, people want ot believe a lie sometimes, you have a free will to believe what you want, but it still does'nt effect what is absolute truth. God bless you. no disrespect intended.

[Free Range]

The right to choice stops when she spreads her legs. That is the only choice she has the right to choose. And that is all I have to say on that subject.

[Bowcephalus]

"I’m pretty sure that if I needed a kidney transplant to not die and Bowcephalus had two healthy kidneys, could get by fine with just one, and was the only matching donor in the world, *all* of you would say that the Government still can’t force Bow to give me a kidney and that I’ll just have to accept my death (that said, I’m sure he’d volunteer it). His right to Liberty trumps my right to Life. How is this situation different than a woman choosing to not undergo the risk and permanent physiological alterations that come with pregnancy? Does she not have the same legal right of control over her body that Bow does? Why is the fetus’ Right to Life considered stronger than an adult’s? How would God view the two situations differently?"


.....Simple enough, your bad kidney is not a direct result of my behavior, and my good kidney did not develop from my behavior at all. It is however true that if my mother had aborted me you'd be S. out of luck.

[Dave Holquist]

You're right, Wingman, this thread has taken a very weird turn from the original post. We all know that BHO is all for killing infants pretty much anytime. Check his legislative record. Disgraceful.

I guess nobody wants to speculate about the purpose of this "new organization"?

[brad]

I'll take a stab at it.

Purpose of the "new organization": To raise an army of community organizers. To promote and expand the goals and values of the so-called left-wing liberal democrats. To increase to size and scope and power of government. To replace independent thought and self-reliance with group-think and a mob mentality. To promote the "cult of personality" surrounding Obama.

Of course conservatives want Obama to fail, because we deeply and fundamentally believe his policies and practices are fundamentally flawed and will cause great and lasting harm to our country.

[Wingman]

Well, that pretty much covers it. :)

[Sam Dunham]

Hey Wingman how you doin? Been a while. Your family healthy and sharing my taste for Raviolis? Hope so, and look forward to converstion. Blessings

[Sam Dunham]

Actually they all had slaves and were dead wrong! They knew they were wrong and slowly adhered to thier Hypocrisy. Any form of slavery was and is wrong. Now the era prevailed in thier time. Yes they were all caight up in the World wide era of slavery in which many slave solicitation camps existed in Africa by African entrepeneurs. Yes they existed and existed all over the world in many Nations not just envolving Africans as slaves. This was the norm all the back to Biblical times. Captured enemies etc. Indian tribes in the Northern Hemisphere had slaves. The "Slave Era" existed for hundreds of years until the Mechanical Era ended many of the tasks that Humanity had to perform. Now Many Americans such as Bill Clinton allowed the Hispanics to come across the border and perform field labor and other "undesireable Jobs" in America illegally to the tone of Millions every year. These Humans come across and work for pennys on the dollar in America illegally. If you really feel strongly about the Law and enforcement, then support legislation to stop these people from coming across our borders. They should be treated equally under the constitution. OK, arrest them if they are illegal and protect them from a mild case of "En-slavement. Now, do not think that the Founding Fathers had poor judgement in all areas, they did not. They were caught up in an Era of change which was eventually corrected by the very Document they wrote! Nothing should be taken away from thier initial Wisdom of these Men. They were right by thier own pen! and without vindication on thier status at the time. In other words, they were wrong by owning slaves, but stated it in writing that they were. At the time, concensus defined slaves as property in document form. Robert E Lees slaves did not want to leave thier home at Arlington when the Federals took his property. Lee also payed his slaves a small salary and considered them part of the family. This was very unacceptable at the time and does not justify him having them, but it is much the same with the so called "Green Card holders" and illegals. Just a perspective from my point of view.

[raisins]

So are you suggesting that I want him to fail just because I didn't vote for him or won't follow his decisions without question? Now that BHO is President, any sort of debate or difference in opinion about his policies is "very sad and unpatriotic?" Is that what you really believe?

By right periphery, I meant extreme conservative partisans. Many of them do seem to want Obama to fail so they can regain power, country be damned. I didn't refer to you as any such thing Dave.

[raisins]

You left out the first part of my sentence, "If the people's voices are heard". That includes YOU. I don't know where you get this totalitarian state stuff from, people can have differences, work to get along, and still accomplish things. It's when argument becomes the point, not the process to come to consensus, that we fail collectively. Your guy lost, and there's a new sheriff in town. That doesn't mean you are out of the picture. Go get active in whatever cause you believe in, or write a letter to your Senator/congressman. And give the new guy a chance.

Well said.