There is something truly fucked up going on.

The guy has no credentials and is a media rock star. Nobody is perfect yet this guy can do no wrong.

I find it hilarious how much the democratic voters will let slide and pass off just because there is a D next to someone's name. If a republican were in office and doing the exact same things that Obama has done, he'd be getting vilified, yet Obama is only doing what he must because of the previous administration. There isn't a single thing the Bush did that Obama has stopped doing or changed. I seriously think liberalism is a disease that attacks the reasonable thinking skills of the voters. Of course, this could all apply to republican voters as well, so to answer a different thread I see no hope for this country.

bases_loaded;1241617 wrote:They won't hold off Iran and Russia as we sit idly by

They'll hold off Iran just fine. Russia? Eh, they're not the USSR anymore, though sheer numbers and the fact that they also have nuclear capability would make them more of a threat than Iran ... substantially.

Iran itself would get its ass kicked if it went after Israel.

He told Russia he couldn't do anything till the next term... Then told Israel he'll visit them only if reelected... Russia is sending military weapons and help to Iran... Irans leaders goal is to eliminate Israel

1+1+1+ 1=?

tk421;1241622 wrote:I find it hilarious how much the democratic voters will let slide and pass off just because there is a D next to someone's name. If a republican were in office and doing the exact same things that Obama has done, he'd be getting vilified, yet Obama is only doing what he must because of the previous administration. There isn't a single thing the Bush did that Obama has stopped doing or changed. I seriously think liberalism is a disease that attacks the reasonable thinking skills of the voters. Of course, this could all apply to republican voters as well, so to answer a different thread I see no hope for this country.

Ding! This is all correct. People complain or spooge about an official based on their party affiliation, regardless of the fact that they do so many of the same damn things.

bases_loaded;1241627 wrote:He told Russia he couldn't do anything till the next term... Then told Israel he'll visit them only if reelected... Russia is sending military weapons and help to Iran.

1+1+1=?

Israel can then buy weapons, too. They fought to be an autonomous state. Part of being an autonomous state is defending one's own borders. They're a big boy. Iran would NEED weapons from Russia just to make it a contest, nukes being the only serious weapon that could make a difference (and Israel would still have "more" nukes, presumably).

tk421;1241622 wrote:I find it hilarious how much the democratic voters will let slide and pass off just because there is a D next to someone's name. If a republican were in office and doing the exact same things that Obama has done, he'd be getting vilified, yet Obama is only doing what he must because of the previous administration. There isn't a single thing the Bush did that Obama has stopped doing or changed. I seriously think liberalism is a disease that attacks the reasonable thinking skills of the voters. Of course, this could all apply to republican voters as well, so to answer a different thread I see no hope for this country.

As I'm a resident liberal here...I have explained that it is less about the person than the clashing visions of the parties. The Republican party is now full of fools who have no grasp as to how their own policy proposals will make everything worse despite vast amounts of evidence. But, a moral opposition to "big government" (despite the number of public employees being now lower than its been since 1968) prevails.They must be repudiated. We'd be better off on the liberal side with a more competent chief executive but it is the hand we were dealt.

Until the day comes when hardcore, legitimate conservatives like Dick Lugar are not ostracized for being "not conservative enough" and good, reasonable conservatives like Steve LaTourette aren't shunned for wanting to make a deal when government is divided, I see no reason to support any of the madness percolating through the GOP.

BoatShoes;1241722 wrote:As I'm a resident liberal here...I have explained that it is less about the person than the clashing visions of the parties. The Republican party is now full of fools who have no grasp as to how their own policy proposals will make everything worse despite vast amounts of evidence. But, a moral opposition to "big government" (despite the number of public employees being now lower than its been since 1968) prevails.They must be repudiated. We'd be better off on the liberal side with a more competent chief executive but it is the hand we were dealt.

Until the day comes when hardcore, legitimate conservatives like Dick Lugar are not ostracized for being "not conservative enough" and good, reasonable conservatives like Steve LaTourette aren't shunned for wanting to make a deal when government is divided, I see no reason to support any of the madness percolating through the GOP.

I can honestly see THIS on both sides as well.

O-Trap;1241724 wrote:I can honestly see THIS on both sides as well.

Well, I just patently disagree and I think a careful look at policies proposed would agree. The classic example is the affordable care act. When conservatives invented it, the libertarians (like yourself) opposed it. Perhaps it makes you happier now that conservatives have decided to agree with the libertarian view on the issue, that is fine, but the reality is they're vehemently repudiating something they invented.

Another example, President Bush issued several rounds of stimulus in the form of tax rebates. President Obama issued a stimulus enormously similar and form and no republicans vote for it.

Give me an example of where you see liberal democrats more to the left than they were in the last decade, refusing to support ideas that they came up with?

You don't see moderate liberals getting primaried all over the country. You don't see long time democrats switching to the republican party.

BoatShoes;1241729 wrote:Well, I just patently disagree and I think a careful look at policies proposed would agree. The classic example is the affordable care act. When conservatives invented it, the libertarians (like yourself) opposed it. Perhaps it makes you happier now that conservatives have decided to agree with the libertarian view on the issue, that is fine, but the reality is they're vehemently repudiating something they invented.

Hardly makes me "happy," as I see the Republicans as hypocritical.

Similarly, when the Republicans came up with it, it was opposed by Democrats who, at the time, favored what I recall being known as "Hillarycare" by the GOPers. Now, the plan the Republicans initiated back ... which was opposed by Democrats at the time ... is being lauded by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.

Hell, the little pocket of Libertarians seems to have been the consistent one of the group, regardless of who poses it.

Another such example would have been the audit of the Federal Reserve, a position on which the parties have seemingly flip-flopped positions ... likely as a result of who was furthering it.

BoatShoes;1241729 wrote:Another example, President Bush issued several rounds of stimulus in the form of tax rebates. President Obama issued a stimulus enormously similar and form and no republicans vote for it.

Same thing the other way, though. As I recall, Daschle's Senate Democrats opposed the stimulus proposed by Republicans. Now, they seem to think it's the best plan of action.

BoatShoes;1241729 wrote:Give me an example of where you see liberal democrats more to the left than they were in the last decade, refusing to support ideas that they came up with?

That wasn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the Democrat base has flipped positions on issues, seemingly based on who has asserted them ... same as the Republicans.

what is the saying about doing the same thing over and over again and fools? So, Bush does something that gets us in this mess and "we" elect Obama for change, but he continues the exact same thing and it doesn't help, so we need to reelect Obama so that he can continue doing the exact same thing? If it got us into the mess, and 4 years of Obama continuing Bush's policies, why would 4 more years have any different effect? Honestly?

tk421;1241749 wrote:what is the saying about doing the same thing over and over again and fools?

Einstein's definition of insanity, I think.

tk421;1241622 wrote:If a republican were in office and doing the exact same things that Obama has done, he'd be getting vilified

This is true, but it goes both ways. Gingrich was hailed as a genius and the hero of the Republican party when he was pushing the individual mandate in the 90's. Now it's the beginning of the end of the Republic once a Democrat actually got it through.

2kool4skool;1241807 wrote:This is true, but it goes both ways. Gingrich was hailed as a genius and the hero of the Republican party when he was pushing the individual mandate in the 90's. Now it's the beginning of the end of the Republic once a Democrat actually got it through.

yes, but Obama "promised" to be different. That's the whole reason he was elected, because he was going to bring much needed change to D.C. :rolleyes:

tk421;1241821 wrote:yes, but Obama "promised" to be different. That's the whole reason he was elected, because he was going to bring much needed change to D.C. :rolleyes:

Nearly every President has talked about being different from predecessors. Bush II ran on a platform of non-interventionism and small government. Reagan's entire schtick was "less government" despite the fact he grew the Federal Government during both of his terms. It goes both ways, trying to frame it with these "yeah buts" to make it a Democrat issue is simply doing the same thing you're accusing liberals of doing.

I think it all goes back to Mitch McConnell's comments about the Republicans main goal is making sure that Obama becomes a one-term President. I've really got to give some kind of perverted props to the R's on this. They have joined together in lockstep on this goal and put everything else on the back burner. They've stalled just about everything in the Senate with the threats of filibuster and have yet to introduce anything resembling legislation which could help the job market in the House, despite running on a "where are the jobs" platform.

The problem, as I see it, will be if the Republicans win control of the WH and Senate. How will they counter obstructionist tactics by the D's when it was themselves who made it an art form? Better yet, how will the conservatives on this forum view the shoe being on the other foot?

2kool4skool;1241839 wrote:Bush II ran on a platform of non-interventionism and small government.

I just had to quote this to emphasize the lol-worthiness of it.

2kool4skool;1241807 wrote:This is true, but it goes both ways. Gingrich was hailed as a genius and the hero of the Republican party when he was pushing the individual mandate in the 90's. Now it's the beginning of the end of the Republic once a Democrat actually got it through.

He was a "genius and hero" because he devised a method to nationalize the congressional election and take the house. The mandate idea had zero to do with it.

fish82;1241581 wrote:This. At this point I'm still thinking neither side breaks 285.

Yeah, this will prolly go late into the night.

bases_loaded;1241612 wrote:I believe if he's behind in the polls well be at War in October.

If he's ahead he helps eliminate Israel in his next 4 years. Sleeper cell president

What? That makes no sense.

tk421;1241615 wrote:Assault weapons ban in the 1st year of Obama's second term, everyone saying that just because he hasn't gone after the guns yet doesn't mean a thing. Especially with these 2 tragic shootings to use as ammunition.

And how the hell will that get through Congress? An Executive Order won't fly as Congress will go ape shit.
And proof of this or are you just speculating?

bases_loaded;1241617 wrote:They won't hold off Iran and Russia as we sit idly by

News to me. Damn, I must have missed when Panetta was there behind the two missile defense systems that the U.S. helped pay for, Iron Dome and David's Sling. And must have missed where the NSA is sharing intelligence with Israel on Iran's military capabilities.

bases_loaded;1241627 wrote:He told Russia he couldn't do anything till the next term... Then told Israel he'll visit them only if reelected... Russia is sending military weapons and help to Iran... Irans leaders goal is to eliminate Israel

1+1+1+ 1=?

Come on. The Russian quote was related to missile defense and nuclear arms reductions. The Ruskies want a new agreement with the U.S. on missile defense and further nuclear arms reductions, given the Congressional calendar, there was no way Obama could ever get any deal passed. That is what he meant.
And, so what if the President has to visit Israel after the election, aid and military sales have never been higher.
You are not making any sense.

O-Trap;1241632 wrote:Israel can then buy weapons, too. They fought to be an autonomous state. Part of being an autonomous state is defending one's own borders. They're a big boy. Iran would NEED weapons from Russia just to make it a contest, nukes being the only serious weapon that could make a difference (and Israel would still have "more" nukes, presumably).

Agreed. Israel will be just fine.

O-Trap;1241724 wrote:I can honestly see THIS on both sides as well.

I agree 100%, most normal people would agree with this statement. However, you won't find hard core left leaners like BS agreeing with you. In his mind everything wrong is the Rs fault. He's as bad as Rush Limbaugh on the right side where everything is the Ds faults.

BoatShoes;1241729 wrote:Well, I just patently disagree and I think a careful look at policies proposed would agree. The classic example is the affordable care act. When conservatives invented it, the libertarians (like yourself) opposed it. Perhaps it makes you happier now that conservatives have decided to agree with the libertarian view on the issue, that is fine, but the reality is they're vehemently repudiating something they invented.

Another example, President Bush issued several rounds of stimulus in the form of tax rebates. President Obama issued a stimulus enormously similar and form and no republicans vote for it.

Give me an example of where you see liberal democrats more to the left than they were in the last decade, refusing to support ideas that they came up with?

You don't see moderate liberals getting primaried all over the country. You don't see long time democrats switching to the republican party.

1. You never saw conservatives excited about government health care, even if a RINO originally had the idea.
2. You can not be intellectually honest and say you don't understand why conservatives would be happy about tax cuts as stimulus but not happy with plain old borrow/print and spend stimulus. Now, a true conservative would have wanted spending reductions with the tax cuts, but that is another discussion totally. Sometimes I wonder if you are truly honest or just playing the liberal role. You KNOW EXACTLY why a conservative would be ok with tax cuts but not ok with more government spending. To equate the two is laughable, even if you call them 'equal' deficit wise.

BoatShoes;1241729 wrote:Well, I just patently disagree and I think a careful look at policies proposed would agree. The classic example is the affordable care act. When conservatives invented it, the libertarians (like yourself) opposed it. Perhaps it makes you happier now that conservatives have decided to agree with the libertarian view on the issue, that is fine, but the reality is they're vehemently repudiating something they invented.

You know, this is about the 100th time I've read this from you, and it hasn't gotten any truer since the first time you said it. For supporting an individual mandate (not a 2000-page takeover of the healthcare field), I count 1) Newt, who's been out of government for over a decade and repudiated it during his primary run for Prez, 2) the Heritage Foundation, who repudiated it about 5 minutes after the ink was dry, and 3) Mitt Romney at the state level in Mass.

Actually Harry Truman invented it if you want to go way back. It has NEVER been a pillar of any conservative platform- if it were, GWB and a Republican Congress would've done it in the early 2000's

2kool4skool;1241807 wrote:This is true, but it goes both ways. Gingrich was hailed as a genius and the hero of the Republican party when he was pushing the individual mandate in the 90's. Now it's the beginning of the end of the Republic once a Democrat actually got it through.

Newt and the Republicans gained control of the House in '94 in part because of opposition to Hillarycare. If it really were a pillar and staple of Republican thought there were plenty of opportunities between now and then to get it done.

stlouiedipalma;1241840 wrote:I think it all goes back to Mitch McConnell's comments about the Republicans main goal is making sure that Obama becomes a one-term President. I've really got to give some kind of perverted props to the R's on this. They have joined together in lockstep on this goal and put everything else on the back burner. They've stalled just about everything in the Senate with the threats of filibuster and have yet to introduce anything resembling legislation which could help the job market in the House, despite running on a "where are the jobs" platform.

The problem, as I see it, will be if the Republicans win control of the WH and Senate. How will they counter obstructionist tactics by the D's when it was themselves who made it an art form? Better yet, how will the conservatives on this forum view the shoe being on the other foot?

2 words: Budget Reconciliation. Got Obamacare passed, gonna get it repealed.

There's also the option of President Romney unconstitutionally refusing to enforce certain laws, or rewriting laws he doesn't like, or legislating via press conference, or dispatching thugs from the Justice Dept. to bully states into getting in line. But those tactics are for you guys.

ccrunner609;1242179 wrote:Boat do you agree about how the left who is in power now seem to just ignore federal laws to justify and implement their way of governing?

Well, Republican Ulysses S. Grant ignored a federal law one time 150 years ago, so pretty much that method is chiseled in stone for all Republicans for all time.

jhay78;1242244 wrote:You know, this is about the 100th time I've read this from you, and it hasn't gotten any truer since the first time you said it. For supporting an individual mandate (not a 2000-page takeover of the healthcare field), I count 1) Newt, who's been out of government for over a decade and repudiated it during his primary run for Prez, 2) the Heritage Foundation, who repudiated it about 5 minutes after the ink was dry, and 3) Mitt Romney at the state level in Mass.

Actually Harry Truman invented it if you want to go way back. It has NEVER been a pillar of any conservative platform- if it were, GWB and a Republican Congress would've done it in the early 2000's



Newt and the Republicans gained control of the House in '94 in part because of opposition to Hillarycare. If it really were a pillar and staple of Republican thought there were plenty of opportunities between now and then to get it done.



2 words: Budget Reconciliation. Got Obamacare passed, gonna get it repealed.

There's also the option of President Romney unconstitutionally refusing to enforce certain laws, or rewriting laws he doesn't like, or legislating via press conference, or dispatching thugs from the Justice Dept. to bully states into getting in line. But those tactics are for you guys.

"President Romney"??

You really have been slurping at the Kool Aid trough, haven't you?

stlouiedipalma;1242261 wrote:"President Romney"??

You really have been slurping at the Kool Aid trough, haven't you?

I think most would understand the unwritten "hypothetical" part.