People rather be lied to than welcome change

jeffbr

Strangest Tribe wrote:

not rich

that describes at least 3 people in my neighborhood...

I agree, $1M is not necessarily "rich". But he isn't a regular working man, either. He is not your (the generic your) middle class buddy. He has a significant income, has perks way beyond his income, and doesn't worry about the cost of a gallon of milk or a dozen eggs.

blondieblue227

My words have been twisted on the ‘train’ before, so before I go to bed I’ll restate.

As I look back in history, it makes me wonder why politicians that were for change/helping the little guy etc were assassinated. While politicians that lie and caught in a lie did not receive assassination attempts. …Big lies.

And what the hell. I’ll add in the letter I wrote to Obama’s party a month ago:
http://www.geocities.com/ivykennedy/letters/obama.htm

MattyJoe

know1 wrote:

So why does Obama want change? He's rich.

Because HIS change would allow him to keep being rich.

Strangest Tribe

jeffbr wrote:

I agree, $1M is not necessarily "rich". But he isn't a regular working man, either. He is not your (the generic your) middle class buddy. He has a significant income, has perks way beyond his income, and doesn't worry about the cost of a gallon of milk or a dozen eggs.

you are aware of your contradiction dilemma right?

Your middle class buddy becomes president and all of a sudden he's not worried about milk and eggs.. and he doesn't return your calls anymore.

but I still believe Obama cares and is more in touch with middle American than anyone else...

fuck

blondieblue227 wrote:

My words have been twisted on the ‘train’ before, so before I go to bed I’ll restate.

As I look back in history, it makes me wonder why politicians that were for change/helping the little guy etc were assassinated. While politicians that lie and caught in a lie did not receive assassination attempts. …Big lies.

And what the hell. I’ll add in the letter I wrote to Obama’s party a month ago:
http://www.geocities.com/ivykennedy/letters/obama.htm

oh, let's not forget the change Ronald Reagan was bringing, lol.

audome25

Strangest Tribe wrote:

but I still believe Obama cares and is more in touch with middle American than anyone else...

because he says he is.

you guys know the party comes to right? you're not electing king obama?

Strangest Tribe

audome25 wrote:

because he says he is.

you guys know the party comes to right? you're not electing king obama?

I'm a little slow. Could you please elaborate on this response?
I don't understand it.

Thanks

mdg164

blondieblue227 wrote:

Sorry, mom’s been playing her 60’s civil rights programs again.

And that’s the question I’m left with.
Bush and Nixon lied to the people. No assignation attempts were made. (correct?)

Marten Luther King and Bobby Kennedy it seems to me wanted change for the good of the country. They were assassinated.

I know about majority and minority blah blah blah.

Why would people tolerate being lied to, over trying a little bit of change?

And do you think it’s over?
Will they try to kill Obama?

Maybe you didn't pay attention in history class, but Nixon was actually a good president before watergate. He also did the honorable thing and resigned. Clinton lied under oath and was a terrible president. No one tried to kill him. Reagan was the greatest president of our generation, and someone tried to kill him.

Martin Luther King was a REPUBLICAN. Which should be no surprise if you understand how the Democrats work. Look it up!

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican

cincybearcat

jeffbr wrote:

I don't really understand the theory in the original post. Martin & Bobby didn't lie, had a vision, and people assassinated them? Nixon & Bush lied so nobody assassinated them? Reagan was nearly assassinated. Was that because he never lied and had a vision for change? Clinton wasn't assassinated, was that because he lied? I don't see the correlation between change, truth and assassination.

Well baed upon what you said, I think it still holds true.

blondieblue227

mdg164 wrote:

Maybe you didn't pay attention in history class, but Nixon was actually a good president before watergate. He also did the honorable thing and resigned. Clinton lied under oath and was a terrible president. No one tried to kill him. Reagan was the greatest president of our generation, and someone tried to kill him.

Martin Luther King was a REPUBLICAN. Which should be no surprise if you understand how the Democrats work. Look it up!

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican

point taken.
but you didn't need to be nasty when making it.

macgyver06

blondieblue227 wrote:

Sorry, mom’s been playing her 60’s civil rights programs again.

And that’s the question I’m left with.
Bush and Nixon lied to the people. No assignation attempts were made. (correct?)

Marten Luther King and Bobby Kennedy it seems to me wanted change for the good of the country. They were assassinated.

I know about majority and minority blah blah blah.

Why would people tolerate being lied to, over trying a little bit of change?

And do you think it’s over?
Will they try to kill Obama?

Obama is no King, Jr.


and that speech last night is a speech made in route to a position of power... kings speeches came from the heart....

blondieblue227

macgyver06 wrote:

Obama is no King, Jr.


and that speech last night is a speech made in route to a position of power... kings speeches came from the heart....

i didn't say he was.
i agree with you.

catch22

jeffbr wrote:

I don't really understand the theory in the original post. Martin & Bobby didn't lie, had a vision, and people assassinated them? Nixon & Bush lied so nobody assassinated them? Reagan was nearly assassinated. Was that because he never lied and had a vision for change? Clinton wasn't assassinated, was that because he lied? I don't see the correlation between change, truth and assassination.

young, charismatic leaders calling for change don't do well is the gist of it. the kennedy's, mlk, obama plots. if carter had had an ounce of competence, he probably would have been too. those who go with the status quo (and clinton was one of them) can coast through almost anything without repercussion. reagan being the exception that proves the rule i guess.

catch22

mdg164 wrote:

Reagan was the greatest president of our generation,

hahahah. you people make me laugh

policy-wise, reagan might be the worst president we've had in a century. you want someone to blame for islamic extremism and al-quaeda? i'll give you a hint, he was president in the 80's and his initials were R.R.

fuck

catch22 wrote:

hahahah. you people make me laugh

that's what I was about to say...

Nixon and Reagan good presidents?

lol!

decides2dream

_outlaw wrote:

oh, let's not forget the change Ronald Reagan was bringing, lol.

but he wasn't assassinated, so it doesn't count.
anyone remember what movie that was.....where they were discussing assinations and assination attempts.....and listing all the assinators (?) stating how you always know their middles names....but those with failed attempts, no middle names. it was funny, in a very morose way. was it the clint easwood flick when he was a secret service agent and john malchovich was the baddie? this is gonna bug me now......:mad:


and i guess i am unsure what the OP is suggesting? change is a scary thing, both good and bad...b/c it is the 'unknown'....


tis a fact, that whether good change or bad change...it stresses the psyche the same. so yes, i think many, many people are reluctant to change. whether they prefer lies, i don't know. status quo does seem to work for many. what's the saying? the devil you know is better than the devil you don't? pehaps people feel that way.


beyond that...some just have differing views, and radical thinkers always push buttons, get threats....and sure, sometimes get killed or their beliefs. this isn't just an american thing, it's a human thing...throughout history.

cincybearcat

_outlaw wrote:

that's what I was about to say...

Nixon and Reagan good presidents?

lol!

Awesome, now you and I can disagree abotu something other than your normal topic!!!

norm

decides2dream wrote:

but he wasn't assassinated, so it doesn't count.
anyone remember what movie that was.....where they were discussing assinations and assination attempts.....and listing all the assinators (?) stating how you always know their middles names....but those with failed attempts, no middle names. it was funny, in a very morose way. was it the clint easwood flick when he was a secret service agent and john malchovich was the baddie? this is gonna bug me now......:mad:

in the line of fire

the 3 names thing was also discussed in 'conspiracy theory' with mel gibson and julia roberts




and i'll see you ---- AT THE MOVIES!! :D

decides2dream

cutback wrote:

in the line of fire

the 3 names thing was also discussed in 'conspiracy theory' with mel gibson and julia roberts




and i'll see you ---- AT THE MOVIES!! :D

thank you!!!
i was, obviously, thinking in the line of fire///though the name escaped me as i typed. i thought there was another as well, and yes! conspiracy theory! thank you! damn, i own both DVDs...hahahaha...i knew it was so familiar. i kept looking back hoping someone would answr, i hate when i get stuck like that.


and back on topic...i welcome change.

blondieblue227

catch22 and decides2dream have given me insight.
so thanks you two.