TheBanyanTree: Obama Nation

[Sachet]

Several months ago a Tree member provided a political diatribe from 
another point of view. At that time it upset several people and pleased 
many people; just as this one has done. It was agreed that The Banyan 
Tree does respect freedom of speech, within reason. That level of 
"reason" is going to differ for everyone. Of course it is, because we 
all have personal opinions and convictions re: our political beliefs. We 
naturally feel outraged if a post opposes our beliefs.

Therefore, it was decided that IF you feel the need to send in a 
politically based commentary, rant, story, etc., then you are required 
to add POLITICAL to the Subject line, as a courtesy to every other Tree 
member.

That allows everyone the freedom to delete that post before reading it, 
if they so choose.

*IF* you choose to read it, then direct your comments to the author *off 
list*. This is not a political debate forum.

Seriously, no flame wars allowed. In order to post to the Tree you 
actually have to take the time to change the reply setting, so you DO 
realize what you're doing. It's not an accident when a post comes 
directly to the Tree. We arranged it that way for this very reason.

....Sachet

Jim Miller wrote:
> Wow, here I go. Twice in one day. 
>
> That was a bit of a nasty put down; don't you think Mike? Sort of out of
> character for the gentle souls abiding here. I for one enjoyed the whimsy.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thebanyantree-bounces at lists.remsset.com
> [mailto:thebanyantree-bounces at lists.remsset.com] On Behalf Of Mike Pingleton
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:56 PM
> To: thebanyantree at remsset.com
> Subject: Re: TheBanyanTree: Obama Nation
>
> Kindly take note that this is a place for stories, not political
> blather.  Did you not get the memo?  Is there a story in there
> somewhere?  I detect a farcical dilemma, which obviously isn't a real
> dilemma for you, but I don't see much else.  There are plenty of other
> places more appropriate for political rants and raves.
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM, John <spoonoid at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>   
>> Spoonoids:
>>
>>    Now that we have a filled out ticket with a team of
>> Obama-Biden, note how their names sound good together. It
>> rolls off the tongue. BarackObamaJoeBiden almost sounds
>> poetic. But I still have a problem with which Obama I should
>> vote for.
>>    Should I vote for the Cut-and-Run Obama? Now that we
>> have won the war in Iraq, and liberated 27 million Iraqis
>> from their thuggish dictatorship, and given them the
>> opportunity to enjoy prosperity in a democratic society, I
>> might be able to vote for the Cut-and-Run Obama. Cut-and-Run
>> might have looked attractive a year or two ago when the war
>> did not seem to be going very well, and we as a country would
>> not have felt bad about throwing the people of Iraq under the
>> al Qaeda bus.
>>     Maybe now I could vote for the Raise-Your-Taxes Obama.
>> Since it is clear that Big Oil is the source of all our
>> problems, we should hit those businesses with windfall
>> profits taxes. I would like to buy cheaper gasoline for my
>> vehicles, so how else might we go about reducing the price?
>> Econ 101 says we could decrease demand or increase supply. We
>> could decrease demand by having fewer people who want to
>> drive, so maybe we could reduce the population of the U.S. by
>> ten percent. Nope, that would be too disruptive of our
>> prosperity. I know, we could drill for oil in our own
>> backyard and thus increase the supply without having to buy
>> the stuff from the Middle East. But that's no good because it
>> will take five years for the new oil to get through the
>> system to the gas pumps. OK, then we should just raise taxes
>> on the oil companies. Excellent idea! That should solve all
>> our oil problems. And as I understand it, the oil companies
>> are not the only ones whom Obama would like to raise the
>> taxes of. Listen carefully to his convention speech when he
>> will tell about the many plans he has to raise your taxes.
>>     How about the Destroy-Your-Second-Amendment-Rights
>> Obama? Barack favored the position of the mayor of Washington
>> DC, who wanted to keep it illegal for anyone who lived in his
>> city to own an operable handgun in his own home. If an armed
>> criminal kicks in your door so he can steal your TV, or rape
>> your daughter, you are not allowed to defend yourself or your
>> child with a handgun. But you are allowed to calmly call the
>> local police and wait for them to arrive and take care of the
>> situation. Fortunately, the Supreme Court recently voted to
>> uphold the validity of the Second Amendment to affirm the
>> right of the individual to bear arms.
>>     I might like to vote for the First-Black-Man-as-
>> President Obama if I had a stomach for his socialist
>> policies. We already had Bill Clinton, who claimed to be the
>> First-Black-President, but he was really a white man who
>> pretended to be concerned about the plight of Blacks. I have
>> no problem with a Black President, but I do have a problem
>> with Mr. Obama as president.
>>     Could I vote for the Obama whose wife has never felt
>> proud of her country, despite her wealthy life style among
>> her powerful political connections at the pinnacle of the
>> Democrat Party?
>>    Despite his choice of Joe Biden as his running mate,
>> and the mellifluous sound of their names together, Obama has
>> too many policy problems to take over the presidency of the United States.
>> Who is the alternative? McCain may have a Republican
>> sticker on his limousine, but he looks more like a Democrat
>> when compared to Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush41, or
>> Bush43. McCain may not be the ideal candidate for president,
>> but he is so much more qualified for the position, his
>> opponent ought to appear ridiculous to most voters.
>>  Don't forget to vote.
>>
>> Later, John.
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>