BigRedBuster

I don't know if it's a promise exactly . . . but it's pretty close. http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all I also posted a link on this earlier.

So what's your criticism exactly? Lack of consistency in that Obama said he would meet without pre-conditions and then later qualified that by saying that he would only meet if it advanced the interests of the US? You seem to be arguing both sides . . . but that Obama is wrong either way. It may seem that way. I am fed up with campaign rhetoric and my views on it may be extremely confusing to understand especially on a message board. A very large part of Obama's campaign was against Bush's foreign policies. One of the major themes of his campaign was how hawkish Bush was and how we need to go talk to them...(yes, he said without precondition). Bush was willing to talk to them but with precondition. So many people who supported him firmly believed that all of a sudden everyone was going to like us because he was going to change our foreign policies. Heck, he won the friggen Nobel Peace Prize for Christs sake without doing anything other than getting elected. That was embarrassing as an American. Do something first and then we will give you an award. My point is, if you are so against how something is being done and because of that you are put in position to do something about it because people supported you then friggen go do it. He hasn't done anything of the sort. If you aren't going to do what you say, then don't criticize the people who are in power trying to make things work. Support them and try to make it a success. I know I am not explaining my views on this very well at all. Sorry. I have the exact same views against conservatives (Bush) on spending. Don't campaign and criticize liberals (democrats) on spending if you are going to come into office and do the exact same thing or worse. I'm just sick and tired of rhetoric and no results.

Total deficit of the US government is somewhere around 1.3 trillion. Your chart shows that total spending in 2009 on defense is 604 billion. We could completely eliminate the defense department and we still would have 700 billion in deficits. I haven't seen anyone here argue against cutting the defense budget. But, entitlements need to be cut also. Yep...across the board. I think that is where the discussion needs to start. If you want to keep what you listed, then let's talk. I would be willing to drastically cut the education department....heck...let's eliminate it all together. That would be 62 billion right there (according to Knapp's chart)

I am a gun owner and an advocate of owning guns. I will fight like hell to keep that freedom. However, I can see restrictions on these types of guns. And, I have no problem with back ground checks. The problem is, it won't keep them out of criminals hands. Anyone who believes that is fooling themselves.

Whose entitlements should we cut and in what amount? I'm fine with cutting them across the board until we are to a point we can pay for it. Then, if one wants more money, we decide which one gets cut from there. I'll even give you raising taxes on the rich if they would agree to do this.

Whose entitlements should we cut and in what amount? I'm fine with cutting them across the board until we are to a point we can pay for it. Then, if one wants more money, we decide which one gets cut from there.

That's all fine and dandy. Lets start with the defense budget. Great...I have spelled out here how I would do that and it would cut it very deep. Done.. But, that doesn't come anywhere close to balancing the budget. Cut entitlements and we have money for these types of things that benefit us greatly.

I know an older Italian man who grew up right down the street from John Gotti. He knew him very well growing up. I had heard the saying...."Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" but to hear him say it really meant something if you know what I mean. Completely cutting off all communication from Iran (for an example) is the wrong approach. Not because you are going to change their mind but it allows you to at least get a feel for what they are doing even if they are trying to cover it up. Does that make sense? We have to engage our foes. But, you're not going to change their attitude about us by sitting down and talking to them. They are still going to hate you and still want to kill you. We can talk all we want with Iran and they still are going to hate us because we support Israel. When I say Iran hates us, I'm talking about the people in power. A large number of Iranians actually like us. I guess from this article, you would have to decide what a precondition is. http://abcnews.go.co...bamas-evolving/ When was it that he sat down with them? Bush administration was willing to sit down with them also. BTW....Europe has pretty much always kept the channels of communication open with these countries. Has it helped them avoid terrorist attacks?

I am not against federally funded research. Just as an example, look at all the great things that have come out of the federally funded space program? But, when are we going to get serious about cutting our spending? We can't spend the way we have been. And, raising taxes on the rich doesn't even come close to covering what we are spending?

Just like Bush's Iraq war was going to bring gas back down to $1 a gallon, right? i think he is poking fun at the perceived notion that liberals thought obama was going to fix everything and make everything better everywhere. no liberals thought that, but i think it is fun for conservatives to think that they did. I wasn't poking fun at liberals because I have absolutely no clue what anyone actually believes. I was poking fun at Obama.

Did you really think that? When he created his administration in Dec 2008 / Jan 2009, he went total hawk in state & defense. Heck no. But, he sure campaigned on it. He claimed that Bush's policies were why the world hated us and that specifically with Iran, we just needed to sit down and talk with them. He said that on a number of occasions and at least once in debates. He turned hawkish when he entered the office because then he was met with the real world. The real world doesn't give a crap about what he campaigned on or what he promised. Over the last 10-20 years could our foreign policy been better? Heck yes. But, reality is, there are very bad people in the world and one region in particular has a lot of them. Sitting down and having tea with them isn't going to make us safer.

you really think it is as black and white as either all true or all false? you have to be able to decipher the truth in all information you consume. The problem is, because he has been so untruthful in various movies, we as the public have no idea what is true in his other movies. How do you know? So, how can you base any opinion on anything that he puts in a movie? AND, some people will sit here and say that they go to the movie but understand some or all of it isn't true. BUT, once you see something it affects your opinion of that idea or event. It kind of goes with the old saying, "the more times you say it, the more true it becomes". The more times you tell a lie, the more people will believe it.

Yes, and you can go through the archives here to confirn it. Good. I'm new here and don't know people's views yet. I an mo fan of Obama/Biden/Hillary, but see them as less foul than McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan. We differ here but that's why we live in America. I clearly labelled Moore's films as "mocumentaries", with bias and with an agenda (see post #18). Then I said that Moore did a triage on facts, and talked about lefty fiction (see post #20).Not sure what you mean by "triage on facts". I am sorry if you were confused. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Mockumentary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko According to Sicko, almost fifty million Americans are uninsured while the remainder, who are covered, are often victims of insurance company fraud and red tape. Interviews are conducted with people who thought they had adequate coverage but were denied care. Former employees of insurance companies describe cost-cutting initiatives that give bonuses to insurance company physicians and others to find reasons for the company to avoid meeting the cost of medically necessary treatments for policy holders, and thus increase company profitability. I am not a fan of insurance companies. So, don't take this as a defense of them. However, when you agree that a producer of documentaries/mocumentaries doesn't tell the truth, then how do you know those people in this movie aren't actors?

Man Knapp.... I can't believe we are agreeing this much. Bill Maher is a piece of crap for all I care.

You used used the word "completely" twice, I did not use it at all. You used used the word "fraud" once, I did not use it at all. I never used the word "documentaries" to describe his films, as you said I did. I identified them as "mocumentaries". Nor did I use the word "thruthful", or any form of it. Please re-read what I wrote, then reply to that. Thank you. Analogies only work if they are remotely proportional. This one is not remotely proportional. If dishonesty is fire, they you must really fear getting burned by Fox News. And Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as politicians. I'll flat out say I don't like their dishonestly and it concerns me. Will you say the same thing about the Obama and Uncle Joe? We are talking about documentaries in this thread. You then point to what the rest of the world calls a documentary in "sicko" and claim it was pretty good. Documentaries are by definition supposed to be truthful and teach us something. From Dictionary.com doc·u·men·ta·ry   [dok-yuh-men-tuh-ree, -tree] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural doc·u·men·ta·ries. adjective 1. Also, doc·u·men·tal  [dok-yuh-men-tl] Show IPA. pertaining to, consisting of, or derived from documents: a documentary history of France. 2. Movies, Television . based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi. You claimed that Sicko "highlighted abuses of a very greedy industry". Now, if you claim that this is just a "mocumentary" (what ever that is) then how can it uncover anything if it isn't factual?

I thought Obama was going to get all of these people to like us.

Well, they weren't a big hit when they were served here.

I will say this... that the Moore film Sicko did do a service to this nation by highlighting the abuses by a very greedy industry. Sure, many facts were triaged for the movie. "Lefty Fiction" will usually be more popular than "Righty Fiction", because it is more likely to poke fun at people in power. Fox News tried to recreate a right wing version of the Daily Show, but it was a complete disaster. . Edit: I would watch Atlas Shrugged over Dora. Really???? Are you sure???? On one hand you agree that in a documentary he completely was biased and put out a complete fraud of a "documentary". Then, on the other hand you act like another of his "documentaries" is truthful. To me, this is about like if I caught my wife banging the entire team of Dallas Cowboys and then the next month she stayed in the same hotel as them and I'm supposed to believe she's being faithful. In the media, burn me once that bad and I have a really difficult time ever believing you again.

Oh...I think we have a ton of common ground. But, where we differ is which candidate do we want in office. I have seen enough of Obama to do me for the rest of my life. I honestly want him out yesterday. Now.....I did not start out supporting Romney. But, the one thing that does interest me with him is that he is a business man and a very successful business man and he has ran large organizations before. He has actually accomplished something. That is completely opposite of who we have now. And, for the record, I can't stand investment bankers. I've worked with them before and they are bastards. So, like I said, It's not like I am a huge fan of Romney. This is where we see a huge difference between you and me. I want a business man in office because they understand what spending and taxes do and how they relate to the business world. And, THAT is where jobs will be created.

This looks really good. Going to have to try it.

I take politically based documentaries all the same way. There is an agenda behind them.

I'm not liberal - never have been. I'm an almost dead-center moderate. Ever taken the Political Compass test? This is where I fall on their compass: Slightly more Socially Authoritarian, but Right-leaning economically. Overall, nearly smack dab in the middle. Yes, I am slightly opposite of you. I am slightly libertarian socially and to the right economically. So, I guess from your graphic, I am a Libertarian Right.

I didn't know that anyone took Michael Moore seriously. Really??? Good Lord, the guy was a celebrity amongst many because he finally was uncovering the truth. Fahrenheit 911 is the highest grossing documentary of all time. That isn't because everyone thought it was a bunch of lies and didn't take it seriously.

My mother was/is an amazing cook but, like you, when I was young I didn't show any interest in cooking. When I went off to college, I got really sick of Kraft Mac and Cheese. So, in my spare time I started trying to cook. Man, some of those early meals stunk. But, this leads to another discussion we have had. When I was first married and we didn't have hardly any money to go out to eat, my wife and I started getting into cooking. We realized that we could cook good fresh meals at home and it was cheaper than buying the crap that is prepared and in a box that is high in fat and calories. Both of our mothers were gardeners also. So, when we bought a house, we started a garden and that only reinforced eating healthy and for less money. Which goes back to the original topic. I honestly don't see why the government ran school lunch program needs to have really bad food. It makes no sense. I'll give you an example. One of the meals that was fed to our kids this year was what was called a "taco burger". Really??? All it was was taco meat on a whole wheat hamburger bun. Nothing else. Good friggen lord. Who in the hell wants that? Put the friggen taco meat in a taco shell and provide lettuce, tomatoes and cheese to go on top of it and it turns it from crap into something they will like. Heck, use whole wheat soft taco shells even.

Yes, this Sooo...let me get this straight. A 4th string QB who wasn't ever going to see the playing field again at that position decided to switch positions and now we are the QB graveyard?