The Rights Panicked Reaction to Obama

[SHarris]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

[gb2004]

Did you ask the same question of the liberals during the Bush presidency?:rolleyes:

[No Spin Zone]

You should have gone to some of the Tea Party events around the country. Talk about people attacking Obama's motives. I mean every person that was there thought Obama was either a commununist, socialist, totalitarian, foreigner or Muslim. Some people thought he was gay and wanted to destroy families. I Think the Republican party has become fear-based in my opinion. It started during the Bush administration and now its carrying over into Obama's administration.

[gb2004]

You should have gone to some of the Tea Party events around the country. Talk about people attacking Obama's motives. I mean every person that was there thought Obama was either a commununist, socialist, totalitarian, foreigner or Muslim. Some people thought he was gay and wanted to destroy families. I Think the Republican party has become fear-based in my opinion. It started during the Bush administration and now its carrying over into Obama's administration.

Really?:rolleyes:And exactly how many tea party events did you attend? Or are you just repeating what you heard on MSNBC?

[Justus]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

I completely understand, I find some of it ridiculous; but you should have seen DU during the Bush administration (hell, even now). This place is nothing compared to nutcase-fest that went on and still goes on over there.

[No Spin Zone]

Did you ask the same question of the liberals during the Bush presidency?:rolleyes:

Oh please. The liberal response to Bush was way different. Most of them gave the guy a free pass for 3 years despite him allowing the attack on 9/11 to occur. And then Republicans tried to blame it solely on Clinton, which is the biggest joke. After the invasion of Iraq liberals got angry because the intelligence Bush collected was almost all wrong. He made clams that didn't make sense. He underevaluated the cost of the war to sell it to the American people. That's why liberals call him names.

Obama has been in office for less then 6 months and every Republican has been calling for his head, examining the way he eats his burgers and drinks his coffee. He has actually been more conservative than Republicans expected even though he won the elction by like 7 points (estimation).

[SHarris]

yeah I imagine it works both way. I wasn't posting here during the Bush admin like I said, so no I didn't pose that question because I didn't pose any questions. I think over exaggerated claims of doom are dumb on either side.

If we are really proud of our country and our Constitution we will have faith that will stand the test of any politician regardless of party.

One thing I've noticed here to is that there are plenty of times questions only get answered by saying something along the lines of "yeah well the liberals did this too" or "what about when they did it"

Take the high rode, aspire to be better than the idiots from the other side who use mud slinging as a form of debate instead of trying to win arguments based on the strength of your position.

Anything else comes off as school yard name calling.

[mechanicon]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

...Honest question, and welcome aboard...The problem I'm having, is the LACK of honest debate that we just witnessed today...The passing of this cap & trade bill, 1500 pages long, had NOTHING CLOSE to honest debate...It was steam-rolled through so as to pass it before it could be closely examined.
I have a major problem being strong-armed by the people in government who are supposed to be working for US...Next up: Obama's "vote on it before it's completed" government health care bill..

I've NEVER taken being strong-armed too well...How do you feel about it???

[simssk]

Oh please. The liberal response to Bush was way different. Most of them gave the guy a free pass for 3 years despite him allowing the attack on 9/11 to occur. And then Republicans tried to blame it solely on Clinton, which is the biggest joke. After the invasion of Iraq liberals got angry because the intelligence Bush collected was almost all wrong. He made clams that didn't make sense. He underevaluated the cost of the war to sell it to the American people. That's why liberals call him names.

Obama has been in office for less then 6 months and every Republican has been calling for his head, examining the way he eats his burgers and drinks his coffee. He has actually been more conservative than Republicans expected even though he won the elction by like 7 points (estimation).

wow....obama conservative.

man... go on back to the DU or your job where you are paid to defend him. That's a bit much to swallow.

[gb2004]

He has actually been more conservative than Republicans expected even though he won the elction by like 7 points (estimation).

Name one conservative thing he has done.

And I'm still waiting for that list of tea party events you were actually at.

[mechanicon]

I completely understand, I find some of it ridiculous; but you should have seen DU during the Bush administration (hell, even now). This place is nothing compared to nutcase-fest that went on and still goes on over there.

.....Hey, what exactly is DU, a website, discussion forum? I would like to check it out, maybe for a laugh or two.:whistle:

[No Spin Zone]

Really?:rolleyes:And exactly how many tea party events did you attend? Or are you just repeating what you heard on MSNBC?

No I went to the one in New York City, Hackensack, New Jersey, and Trenton, New Jersey. I had to write an article about it for school. It wasn't as rosy as Fox made it seem and there were many hateful elements there that you saw in the video tapes from MSNBC.

The whole point of these Tea Parties was fiscal spending. Yet, the people at the Tea Parties were no where to be found when the national debt increased significantly under Bush. Then they tried to make it seem as if this was a left and right issue when it really wasn't. It was just an Obama hate-fest.

[Steel-W0LF]

Most of them gave the guy a free pass for 3 years despite him allowing the attack on 9/11 to occur. And then Republicans tried to blame it solely on Clinton, which is the biggest joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk

Would you take it from the Horses mouth? Probably not.....I meen when have facts ever been high on the lefts list of debate.

[gb2004]

The whole point of these Tea Parties was fiscal spending.

Bingo.

[No Spin Zone]

Name one conservative thing he has done.

And I'm still waiting for that list of tea party events you were actually at.

He has been against gay marriage, he is more conservative about Afghanistan and Iraq, he didn't even pick a radically liberal judge for the Supreme Court (She is very conservative on the economy).

[ThinkingMan]

You should have gone to some of the Tea Party events around the country. Talk about people attacking Obama's motives. I mean every person that was there thought Obama was either a commununist, socialist, totalitarian, foreigner or Muslim. Some people thought he was gay and wanted to destroy families. I Think the Republican party has become fear-based in my opinion. It started during the Bush administration and now its carrying over into Obama's administration.

You forgot to mention their oversized limbic systems.

[darknessesedge]

You should have gone to some of the Tea Party events around the country. Talk about people attacking Obama's motives. I mean every person that was there thought Obama was either a commununist, socialist, totalitarian, foreigner or Muslim. Some people thought he was gay and wanted to destroy families. I Think the Republican party has become fear-based in my opinion. It started during the Bush administration and now its carrying over into Obama's administration.

you can subsitute republican for democrat and obama for GWB.

[SHarris]

...Honest question, and welcome aboard...The problem I'm having, is the LACK of honest debate that we just witnessed today...The passing of this cap & trade bill, 1500 pages long, had NOTHING CLOSE to honest debate...It was steam-rolled through so as to pass it before it could be closely examined.
I have a major problem being strong-armed by the people in government who are supposed to be working for US...Next up: Obama's "vote on it before it's completed" government health care bill..

I've NEVER taken being strong-armed too well...How do you feel about it???

I feel like something has to be done so we can compete with other countries in regards to "green" jobs, and while I'm not a huge Global Warming guy, I do think we should evolve our energy policies in order to be more energy efficent and pollute less. Is this bill the best way to do that? I'm not sure, and the sad thing is I'm not sure anyone really knows. I do think though that this bill went through the house way to fast for how long and complex it is. I'd hope it's looked at much closer in the Senate.

[Jagergeist]

...Honest question, and welcome aboard...The problem I'm having, is the LACK of honest debate that we just witnessed today...The passing of this cap & trade bill, 1500 pages long, had NOTHING CLOSE to honest debate...It was steam-rolled through so as to pass it before it could be closely examined.
I have a major problem being strong-armed by the people in government who are supposed to be working for US...Next up: Obama's "vote on it before it's completed" government health care bill..

I've NEVER taken being strong-armed too well...How do you feel about it???

I agree with you. I support several Democratic points and issues but I am sick to death of getting steamrolled like this. Bills are introduced, there is a flurry of backdoor plotting and compromise, then the bill is voted on in an insane short amount of time to limit or stop any rational discussion. I'm tired of Washington treating voters like 6 year olds and they the mommy and daddy, making all the calls and telling us afterward what to do.

[ChaosControl]

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

I don't think the republicans have to do a whole lot to "win back" voters, I think the democrats are going to drive back voters with their insane policies. It is just like in 06 and 08 only in reverse. Bush and the neocons drove voters to the democrats, the democrats didn't have crap in terms of something to offer.

Neither party has anything to offer anyone, they're both full of greedy corporatist fascists.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

Yes being positive and presenting their own ideas would be better. But then, they are just like the democrats and can do nothing but "well, you suck more, so beeeeh"

[darknessesedge]

I feel like something has to be done so we can compete with other countries in regards to "green" jobs, and while I'm not a huge Global Warming guy, I do think we should evolve our energy policies in order to be more energy efficent and pollute less. Is this bill the best way to do that? I'm not sure, and the sad thing is I'm not sure anyone really knows. I do think though that this bill went through the house way to fast for how long and complex it is. I'd hope it's looked at much closer in the Senate.

1. we have to have something to run our autos that is affordable.
we dont have anything..yet..

[Ninjacorpse]

Oh my, I sincerely hope the bc and the 911 truthers never start mating with each other :(

[Mountain Soldier]

He has been against gay marriage, he is more conservative about Afghanistan and Iraq, he didn't even pick a radically liberal judge for the Supreme Court (She is very conservative on the economy).

You mean the hispanic woman who can make a better decision than a white guy, that conservative?

[HeadOnStraight]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

Maybe because he has been unable to keep his promises or stick with his stated policies, that we try to figure out his motivations for why he does what he does, instead taking him at his word, for what he tells us his motives are?

[No Spin Zone]

Bingo.

So why didn't they start protesting during the Bush Administration?

Are you not connecting the dots here.

[SHarris]

1. we have to have something to run our autos that is affordable.
we dont have anything..yet..

True we don't have anything yet, but that doesn't mean we can't be more efficient with what we have now as we look for alternative fuel sources.

[No Spin Zone]

You mean the hispanic woman who can make a better decision than a white guy, that conservative?

She's not radically conservative. Obama could have picked from a plethora of radically left judges, but he didn't. She is a moderate. Just because she has some left kooky positions doesn't make her a full-blown radical liberal. She is actually conservative on many different issues including the economy and that's what your not hearing from Fox News. You should thank Obama that he picked someone more to the middle

[SHarris]

Maybe because he has been unable to keep his promises or stick with his stated policies, that we try to figure out his motivations for why he does what he does, instead taking him at his word, for what he tells us his motives are?

What has shown you that he wants to ruin the country on purpose?

You might think he's a socialist whack jobs whose policies will ruin us, but what makes you that's his goal.

I disagree with people on the far right, but I don't think they're doing things to ruin the country. They're trying to help our country, just in a way i don't think is best.

[HeadOnStraight]

What has shown you that he wants to ruin the country on purpose?

You might think he's a socialist whack jobs whose policies will ruin us, but what makes you that's his goal.

I disagree with people on the far right, but I don't think they're doing things to ruin the country. They're trying to help our country, just in a way i don't think is best.
You must have my post confused with someone else's, I did not say any of the above in the post you responded to. :confused:

[SHarris]

You must have my post confused with someone else's, I did not say any of the above in the post you responded to. :confused:

my bad, I thought you were saying his motives were to ruin the country, because that's what I had mentioned in my initial post.

my apologies for the misunderstanding.

[mamapajamas]

Neither party has anything to offer anyone, they're both full of greedy corporatist fascists.



"Corporatist fascists"???????

This is a contradiction of terms.

"Corporatists" would be an economic system run entirely by mega-corporations (a system that exists only in science fiction).

"Fascists" are an economic system that is first and foremost socialist, but permits private businesses to operate under strict government control. Examples, Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini.

[mechanicon]

I feel like something has to be done so we can compete with other countries in regards to "green" jobs, and while I'm not a huge Global Warming guy, I do think we should evolve our energy policies in order to be more energy efficent and pollute less. Is this bill the best way to do that? I'm not sure, and the sad thing is I'm not sure anyone really knows. I do think though that this bill went through the house way to fast for how long and complex it is. I'd hope it's looked at much closer in the Senate.

I am not a believer in man-made global warming, I DO think conservation, polluting less, and moving toward alternative fuel sources is a good idea...THAT SAID, what happened today with this BLIND PASSAGE of an energy bill, was nothing more than a massive government intrusion into nearly every aspect of American's lives and wallets...Something this monumental deserved PAINSTAKING STUDY...HELL it takes a drug company 10+ years to get a SINGLE medication through EXHAUSTIVE RISK versus BENEFIT EXAMINATIONS.:doh:

[darknessesedge]

True we don't have anything yet, but that doesn't mean we can't be more efficient with what we have now as we look for alternative fuel sources.

no one says no to becoming more efficient
what we worry about is
dont drill here
dont drill there.
alaska has had drilling and a pipeline for 30+ yrs now and no issues there.
drill pump and move on.

[SHarris]

I am not a believer in man-made global warming, I DO think conservation, polluting less, and moving toward alternative fuel sources is a good idea...THAT SAID, what happened today with this BLIND PASSAGE of an energy bill, was nothing more than a massive government intrusion into nearly every aspect of American's lives and wallets...Something this monumental deserved PAINSTAKING STUDY...HELL it takes a drug company 10+ years to get a SINGLE medication through EXHAUSTIVE RISK versus BENEFIT EXAMINATIONS.:doh:

While this bill may have been passed to fast, we IMO need to act quickly is doing SOMETHING

[penner01]

You should have gone to some of the Tea Party events around the country. Talk about people attacking Obama's motives. I mean every person that was there thought Obama was either a commununist, socialist, totalitarian, foreigner or Muslim. Some people thought he was gay and wanted to destroy families. I Think the Republican party has become fear-based in my opinion. It started during the Bush administration and now its carrying over into Obama's administration.You're thinking maybe the "It is a major crisis that has to be fixed today", and "nobody can solve this dire condition except government" is not fear mongering? Everything so critical and urgent we don't have time to discuss it isn't fear mongering?

[penner01]

While this bill may have been passed to fast, we IMO need to act quickly is doing SOMETHINGBills, that even if successful will have no positive impact for years is are not so urgent that they could not have a reasonable, measured, and collective effort at discussion and sorting through the issues.

[mechanicon]

I agree with you. I support several Democratic points and issues but I am sick to death of getting steamrolled like this. Bills are introduced, there is a flurry of backdoor plotting and compromise, then the bill is voted on in an insane short amount of time to limit or stop any rational discussion. I'm tired of Washington treating voters like 6 year olds and they the mommy and daddy, making all the calls and telling us afterward what to do.

...................2010, 2012, tick tock, tick tock.....I think the politicians who are clearly failing the people they are elected to represent, need to be primaried and voted out...ON BOTH SIDES...Too many politicians have gotten WAY to comfortable with IGNORING the "little people" who expected honest representation...The deal-making and lack of ethics has to be flushed from the system.

[No Spin Zone]

You're thinking maybe the "It is a major crisis that has to be fixed today", and "nobody can solve this dire condition except government" is not fear mongering? Everything so critical and urgent we don't have time to discuss it isn't fear mongering?

Your saying that, not me.

Oh and wasn't that stimulus bill that Bush signed the same as "It is a major crisis that has to be fixed tody"? Would that go in the category?

[RedStatePaPa]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

as opposed to the left's sycophantic indifference and denial of Obama?

[ThinkingMan]

...................2010, 2012, tick tock, tick tock.....I think the politicians who are clearly failing the people they are elected to represent, need to be primaried and voted out...ON BOTH SIDES...Too many politicians have gotten WAY to comfortable with IGNORING the "little people" who expected honest representation...The deal-making and lack of ethics has to be flushed from the system.


Only if there were a politician who actually has integrity...with some actual history of flushing out the corruption and lack of ethics.....and knows about supplying energy.....

Oh well. Maybe in another 100 years.

[RedStatePaPa]

Your saying that, not me.

Oh and wasn't that stimulus bill that Bush signed the same as "It is a major crisis that has to be fixed tody"? Would that go in the category?

Yeah and cons hated that one as well.

The question is why do you libs swallow everything that obama spouts?

[SHarris]

Bills, that even if successful will have no positive impact for years is are not so urgent that they could not have a reasonable, measured, and collective effort at discussion and sorting through the issues.

I agree more debate should have been had on this particualr bill. My point was that we can't continue to put off some type of solution, or simply but a band-aid on the situation.

[mechanicon]

While this bill may have been passed to fast, we IMO need to act quickly is doing SOMETHING

"ACTING QUICKLY" can have disastrous consequences, ESPECIALLY with a bill like this one.

[ChaosControl]

"Corporatist fascists"???????

This is a contradiction of terms.

"Corporatists" would be an economic system run entirely by mega-corporations (a system that exists only in science fiction).

"Fascists" are an economic system that is first and foremost socialist, but permits private businesses to operate under strict government control. Examples, Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology

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

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

A corporation could be a government. There is no conflict with either the definition or the wikipedia entry. The wiki even goes in to say that corporatist economic ideology is fascist. I agree that such is the case.

Phony socialism is corporatism, true socialism wouldn't be fascist any more than true capitalism would be. Corporatism is the worst of capitalism and socialism mixed into one, it is what we have. I'd rather live under true socialism or true capitalism or an honest hybrid that uses the best of both. Corporatism is a horrendous system that hurts everyone but the elite.

[Dim Reefer]

Your saying that, not me.

Oh and wasn't that stimulus bill that Bush signed the same as "It is a major crisis that has to be fixed tody"? Would that go in the category?

That makes it right?

[SHarris]

Yeah and cons hated that one as well.

The question is why do you libs swallow everything that obama spouts?

I don't think its completely just blind following and "swallowing". I think that it's just odd for you that people actually believe his ideas are good.

[Treager]

...................2010, 2012, tick tock, tick tock.....I think the politicians who are clearly failing the people they are elected to represent, need to be primaried and voted out...ON BOTH SIDES...Too many politicians have gotten WAY to comfortable with IGNORING the "little people" who expected honest representation...The deal-making and lack of ethics has to be flushed from the system.
Agreed... congressmen do more to stay in power than they do to represent the people that elected them or even what is good for the country.

I for one, am keeping score. The roll calls from clerk.house.gov makes it pretty easy.
The internet that got Barry elected is going to be the same internet that is used to vote these irresponsilbe elitist buffoons out of office.

[opsyscw]

What is the difference between his motives and his policies?

Seems to me one begats the other, and vice versa.

[mechanicon]

Only if there were a politician who actually has integrity...with some actual history of flushing out the corruption and lack of ethics.....and knows about supplying energy.....

Oh well. Maybe in another 100 years.

There has to be SOME PEOPLE out there:pray:... Maybe the concept of term limits could help, it seems many politicians start out well enough, but after being in the Washington cesspool the can't help getting dirty...Oh yeah, by the way, were you hinting about someone with the initials, S.P.???

[ThinkingMan]

There has to be SOME PEOPLE out there:pray:... Maybe the concept of term limits could help, it seems many politicians start out well enough, but after being in the Washington cesspool the can't help getting dirty...Oh yeah, by the way, were you hinting about someone with the initials, S.P.???

Maybe I was, and maybe I was. :cool:

I don't buy the automatic corruption law just because someone is in Washington.

Problem is, truly decent people never make it there.

[darknessesedge]

There has to be SOME PEOPLE out there:pray:... Maybe the concept of term limits could help, it seems many politicians start out well enough, but after being in the Washington cesspool the can't help getting dirty...Oh yeah, by the way, were you hinting about someone with the initials, S.P.???

the only way to have term limits for congress is for the states to impose them on their elected officials.
congress will never limit its own power.

[mechanicon]

the only way to have term limits for congress is for the states to impose them on their elected officials.
congress will never limit its own power.

True....And unfortunate, the system seems to be set up to perpetuate its own corruptability.

[RedStatePaPa]

I don't think its completely just blind following and "swallowing". I think that it's just odd for you that people actually believe his ideas are good.
His ideas are ****. And everyone knows it except for you libs. Even he knows it that's why he is ramming them trough so fast, so that by the time they turfed out of congress it will be too late.

it is odd since history shows us that raising taxes and increased spending is a big failure. so why do you agree with him?

The total gov't control over everytihng that he is championing is wrong. Why do you agree with him?

I think it very odd that libs just blindly follow along right over the cliff.

[gb2004]

Your saying that, not me.

Oh and wasn't that stimulus bill that Bush signed the same as "It is a major crisis that has to be fixed tody"? Would that go in the category?

And most conservatives here were dead set against that one too. If you had been here then, you would know that.:rolleyes:

[RedStatePaPa]

Only if there were a politician who actually has integrity...with some actual history of flushing out the corruption and lack of ethics.....and knows about supplying energy.....

Oh well. Maybe in another 100 years.

I hear you...

You and I both know it ain't happening thanks to a thorough borking.

[RedStatePaPa]

And most conservatives here were dead set against that one too. If you had been here then, you would know that.:rolleyes:

I don't get this whole "well Bush did it too" whine fest.

Bush's numbers went into the tank because of the things he did. Yes the media helped it along but he did what he did. He acted like a lib on certain things and it cost him.

So anyone saying "well what about Boooosh" need to look at what happened to his popularity. And it wasn't the war. It was his economic policy that did it.

n00bama is 10 times worse than booooosh ever was.

[SHarris]

His ideas are ****. And everyone knows it except for you libs. Even he knows it that's why he is ramming them trough so fast, so that by the time they turfed out of congress it will be too late.

it is odd since history shows us that raising taxes and increased spending is a big failure. so why do you agree with him?

The total gov't control over everytihng that he is championing is wrong. Why do you agree with him?

I think it very odd that libs just blindly follow along right over the cliff.

I feel it very odd you fail to realize that some people think differently than you. "Us liberals" seem to have been the majority around election time, so I wouldn't act like people that support The President are some radical sect.

[ThinkingMan]

I hear you...

You and I both know it ain't happening thanks to a thorough borking.


Right you are.

[SHarris]

I don't get this whole "well Bush did it too" whine fest.

Bush's numbers went into the tank because of the things he did. Yes the media helped it along but he did what he did. He acted like a lib on certain things and it cost him.

So anyone saying "well what about Boooosh" need to look at what happened to his popularity. And it wasn't the war. It was his economic policy that did it.

n00bama is 10 times worse than booooosh ever was.

I think it's naive and simply wrong to think that the war didn't have a huge affect on Bush's popularity

[Middy]

Oh please. The liberal response to Bush was way different. Most of them gave the guy a free pass for 3 years despite him allowing the attack on 9/11 to occur. And then Republicans tried to blame it solely on Clinton, which is the biggest joke. After the invasion of Iraq liberals got angry because the intelligence Bush collected was almost all wrong. He made clams that didn't make sense. He underevaluated the cost of the war to sell it to the American people. That's why liberals call him names.

Obama has been in office for less then 6 months and every Republican has been calling for his head, examining the way he eats his burgers and drinks his coffee. He has actually been more conservative than Republicans expected even though he won the elction by like 7 points (estimation).


His rush to push through his radical agenda, pushing through l,500-page bills for votes, before members of congress even have a chance to read them, is designed to turn our government and our economy into the Saul Alinsky model that he studied when he was a community organizer, working with ACORN .

He misled us when he said that if the stimulus bill was passed immediately, we would see an improvement in the unemployment figures, and if it was not passed, the unemployed numbers would go up. Well, he got his way, the bill was passed, and unemployment went up.

Now that the dumbbells in the House voted for that disgusting, insane energy tax increase bill, if it passes the Senate, we are going to see unemployment take off in double-digit numbers, in spite of their lie that it would create jobs. In areas where they are working on green programs, for every one job created, two jobs are lost, and the jobs created under the green programs are temporary.

His plan to overhaul our healthcare is the most scary. He's only president for 5 months, and I can see why he's in a hurry to push through all of this crap. He has to get them done while he's still popular because after his programs are implemented, and people see the kind of change he brought them firsthand, the people will turn on him and the democrat clowns in congress.

.....and where is he more conservative than anyone thought he would be?
That's kind of funny.

[penner01]

Your saying that, not me.

Oh and wasn't that stimulus bill that Bush signed the same as "It is a major crisis that has to be fixed tody"? Would that go in the category?I wouldn't argue that at all. My point is the man that spoke out against fear factors uses them pretty consistently.

[darknessesedge]

I think it's naive and simply wrong to think that the war didn't have a huge affect on Bush's popularity

the war and capturing saddam made GWB very popular..
the nation building brought his defeat.

[ModerateVoice]

His rush to push through his radical agenda, pushing through l,500-page bills for votes, before members of congress even have a chance to read them, is designed to turn our government and our economy into the Saul Alinsky model that he studied when he was a community organizer, working with ACORN .

If bills are being pushed through before people have the chance to read them, then you damned well know freedoms are being taken away.............where's all the transparency that Obama promised?!

[Middy]

I feel it very odd you fail to realize that some people think differently than you. "Us liberals" seem to have been the majority around election time, so I wouldn't act like people that support The President are some radical sect.


He pretended to be a lot more centrist when he campaigned. Of course, those of us who actually studied his background, his affiliations, and the very small record he had in the Senate knew what an extreme leftist he is.

Those who were getting tingly feelings down their legs and fainted were not interested in hearing anything about his past that was not favorable. They were blinded by his so-called "charisma" and his "soaring rhetoric", not realizing that he never left home without his teleprompter, and if it malfunctioned, he was lost......er....uh.....er.

[SHarris]

the war and capturing saddam made GWB very popular..
the nation building brought his defeat.

I agree for the most part, but I think the choice to go into Iraq began Bush's slip in the polls.

[Greyghost]

No I went to the one in New York City, Hackensack, New Jersey, and Trenton, New Jersey. I had to write an article about it for school. It wasn't as rosy as Fox made it seem and there were many hateful elements there that you saw in the video tapes from MSNBC.

The whole point of these Tea Parties was fiscal spending. Yet, the people at the Tea Parties were no where to be found when the national debt increased significantly under Bush. Then they tried to make it seem as if this was a left and right issue when it really wasn't. It was just an Obama hate-fest.

All you are doing is repeating the exact same talking points from MSNBC and CNN and all other liberal outlets. I seriously doubt you took a serious look around at the tea parties you claimed to be at. I do think you had already made up you mind before even attending. More than likely your liberal teacher told you exactly what you would encounter beforehand and you believed her/him 100%. Learn to think for yourself before you come in here posting nothing more than liberal judgements and then claiming that is what you saw. I'm sure you got an A++++ if your report was anything close to what you posted here even if it was pure fiction. :rolleyes:

[WildRose]

So why didn't they start protesting during the Bush Administration?

Are you not connecting the dots here.Perhaps you haven't been keeping up. With the mony already borrowed for the stiumulus package along with his other spending Obama and his congress have spent more money in four months than the Bush administration spent in 8 years. The deficit has increased by 4x last year's deficit already, and they are now talking about yet another stimulus for later this year.

No question spending was out of control during the last half of the last administration but right now they are spending your grandchildren into a debt that their grandchildren won't be able to pay off.

[darknessesedge]

I agree for the most part, but I think the choice to go into Iraq began Bush's slip in the polls.

we all screamed for action when 911 happen
no matter what lies pelosi tells.
if GWB had left after they got saddam,,,,,the gop would still be in charge of congress.
and mccain would be prez.

[Greyghost]

Bills are introduced, there is a flurry of backdoor plotting and compromise, then the bill is voted on in an insane short amount of time to limit or stop any rational discussion. I'm tired of Washington treating voters like 6 year olds and they the mommy and daddy, making all the calls and telling us afterward what to do.

I agree with you 100% on this. This is also going to severely hurt this country also. Sure it looks like this is purely the Dems doing but what a lot of people miss is that the Republicans are doing the exact same thing. The only reason they slide under the radar is they have 0 power right now. Neither party listens to the voters anymore. The people's voice has been all but silenced. The people need to let these politicians know that the people are in control and vote them all out. These people are only in it for their own self interest and nothing more.

[WildRose]

I agree for the most part, but I think the choice to go into Iraq began Bush's slip in the polls.You need to check your history. No one has had approval ratings in the white house like GWB had right up to the point at which the war was won, and the occupation began.

That was wen the dem's and their willing cohorts in the MSM starting screaming things like "quagmire" and "Viet Nam", and "Terrorizing civilians in the middle of the night".

America has had no patience at all for prolonged military involvement anywhere since Korea.

[WildRose]

we all screamed for action when 911 happen
no matter what lies pelosi tells.
if GWB had left after they got saddam,,,,,the gop would still be in charge of congress.
and mccain would be prez.No, sorry but had that scenario played out, then Bush and the repub's would have been demonized to a far greater extent because of "wasted lives" because Iraq would have melted down with internal warfare between the different sects (Islam) and the Khurds would have declared their own republic which would have caused some serious issues with Turkey.

Instead of stabilizing the region chaos would have ensued, because within a few months Iran and likely Syria would have been in there expanding their state's interests as well.

[SHarris]

You need to check your history. No one has had approval ratings in the white house like GWB had right up to the point at which the war was won, and the occupation began.

That was wen the dem's and their willing cohorts in the MSM starting screaming things like "quagmire" and "Viet Nam", and "Terrorizing civilians in the middle of the night".

America has had no patience at all for prolonged military involvement anywhere since Korea.

My main point was that while Afghanistan was a popular decision with everyone after 9/11, Iraq was not the same case. It may have been the majority opinion, but it wasn't the same as Afghanistan.

[Ingator]

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

Ok, do you think his policies will have a positive or negative impact on the country?

[Kea]

Ok, do you think his policies will have a positive or negative impact on the country?

Stupid question. Take to the streets. It is about action. not deliberation! Wake up!!!!!

[WildRose]

My main point was that while Afghanistan was a popular decision with everyone after 9/11, Iraq was not the same case. It may have been the majority opinion, but it wasn't the same as Afghanistan.And you are clearly wrong. The authorization for the use of force carried if I recall with less than 10 no votes between both houses, and the polls at the time were resoundingly in favor of the actions took.

I guess it's very easy for some to forget that WMD's were only a minor issue. The major issues were Saddam's forces constantly targeting and frequently firing on our aircraft, and his open sponsorship of terrorists. Remember he was offering a 25 or 50K bounty to the families of any suicide bombers willing to strike either us or Israel.

There were over 1,000 separate violations of the gulf war cease fire accords.

The last straw was a combination of them shooting at our, and coalition aircraft in the NFZ and the endless shell game with the UNSCOM inspectors.

[SHarris]

Ok, do you think his policies will have a positive or negative impact on the country?

Yes i personally agree with the majority of his policies and ideas.

[Kea]

Yes i personally agree with the majority of his policies and ideas.

Then you are noting more that part of the problem

[SHarris]

And you are clearly wrong. The authorization for the use of force carried if I recall with less than 10 no votes between both houses, and the polls at the time were resoundingly in favor of the actions took.

I guess it's very easy for some to forget that WMD's were only a minor issue. The major issues were Saddam's forces constantly targeting and frequently firing on our aircraft, and his open sponsorship of terrorists. Remember he was offering a 25 or 50K bounty to the families of any suicide bombers willing to strike either us or Israel.

There were over 1,000 separate violations of the gulf war cease fire accords.

The last straw was a combination of them shooting at our, and coalition aircraft in the NFZ and the endless shell game with the UNSCOM inspectors.

I was talking about public opinion not the congress. Clearly you're not listening. I'm not saying the start of the Iraq war was met with the same anger as the end. I'm simply saying that was not as accepted as the conflict in Afghanistan.

[Ingator]

Stupid question. Take to the streets. It is about action. not deliberation! Wake up!!!!!


I quoted the original author, so no it's not a stupid question.

[SHarris]

Then you are noting more that part of the problem

Part of what problem?

[Kea]

I quoted the original author, so no it's not a stupid question.

Show me your action...not sophetic discussion

[Ingator]

Yes i personally agree with the majority of his policies and ideas.


How do you know they are the correct choices?

[Ingator]

Show me your action...not sophetic discussion


Go wave your flag in the street, that will stop em

[Kea]

How do you know they are the correct choices?

You know by whether or not it is a mentally deficient liberal argument or not.

[SHarris]

How do you know they are the correct choices?

I don't know that they're right and more than you know they're wrong.

I feel like they will be positive. You feel like they will be negative.

Nobody can truly say the KNOW what will happen. They're can be educated guesses based on prior occurrences but no definitive answer will be known for some time.

[Kea]

Go wave your flag in the street, that will stop em

They don't respect the flag.

[WildRose]

I was talking about public opinion not the congress. Clearly you're not listening. I'm not saying the start of the Iraq war was met with the same anger as the end. I'm simply saying that was not as accepted as the conflict in Afghanistan.
And you are still wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm

The congress would not have overwhelmingly supported the use of force in as such strong numbers if the polls had n ot shown it to be what the country wanted.

It wasn't until the end of "major combat operations" when GWB declared "Mission Accomplished" that things began to slide.

In very short order Americans started whining and complaining that it was "taking too long" and then the numbers started to slide inexorably downward.

He still won Re-election in 2004 though and did so resoundingly so obviously even at that point his approval rating was pretty darned high.

[Ingator]

I don't know that they're right and more than you know they're wrong.

I feel like they will be positive. You feel like they will be negative.

Nobody can truly say the KNOW what will happen. They're can be educated guesses based on prior occurrences but no definitive answer will be known for some time.


How do you know I don't know?

[Kea]

How do you know I don't know?

You know right form wrong when these fools are setting up a program that has the fed goverenment determining the detais of every action. Did you not watch CSPAN and liesten to the debate?

[SHarris]

How do you know I don't know?

Because nobody can for sure know what is going to happen.

[SHarris]

And you are still wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm

The congress would not have overwhelmingly supported the use of force in as such strong numbers if the polls had n ot shown it to be what the country wanted.

It wasn't until the end of "major combat operations" when GWB declared "Mission Accomplished" that things began to slide.

In very short order Americans started whining and complaining that it was "taking too long" and then the numbers started to slide inexorably downward.

He still won Re-election in 2004 though and did so resoundingly so obviously even at that point his approval rating was pretty darned high.

I understand what you're saying, I just think you're not understanding what I was trying to say. Perhaps I am wrong but I'm just going based on my memory of the events and the debate of going into Iraq or not.

[Ingator]

i'll be back later

[HeadOnStraight]

You're thinking maybe the "It is a major crisis that has to be fixed today", and "nobody can solve this dire condition except government" is not fear mongering? Everything so critical and urgent we don't have time to discuss it isn't fear mongering?
Our history books will mark these days of the 0bama administration as a dark time in our history, and the fool 0bama, is not even close to being done yet. Never taking the time to debate issues, or even allow our representatives time to read what is being voted on; this head-long rush into the unknown, driven by partisan politics...this is really going to suck.

[WildRose]

I don't know that they're right and more than you know they're wrong.

I feel like they will be positive. You feel like they will be negative.

Nobody can truly say the KNOW what will happen. They're can be educated guesses based on prior occurrences but no definitive answer will be known for some time.Well no that's clearly not true.

The last five recessions including the current one were precipitated by a rapid run up of energy prices.

Cap and trade is going to add the biggest single increase to energy costs in history which WILL cost thousands, if not millions of jobs over the next two years once it's implimented.

Along with that will come rapid and irrevocable increases in the cost of all goods and services produced in the US because they all require energy for production. Only a complete fool believes that these costs are going to be bourne by "big business" because they will simply pass along their cost increases either directly to the consumer, or they will cut costs by reducing their work force.

What is also inarguable is that we are running up a tab at the treasury right now, that we couldn't possibly hope to pay off in the next forty years, even if we had a 70% flat tax on all income, private and corporate in the US.

There is simply not enough money to keep the promises that are being made and passed into legislation.

[hailreagan]

Our history books will mark these days of the 0bama administration as a dark time in our history, and the fool 0bama, is not even close to being done yet. Never taking the time to debate issues, or even allow our representatives time to read what is being voted on; this head-long rush into the unknown, driven by partisan politics...this is really going to suck.


Agreed. People will say "how could they have let this happen".........

To me, this is like a slow motion train wreck with some screaming "watch out" in slow motion while others stand there drinking koolaid.

I don't even know how anyone middle of the road could now defend him.

[brody]

The ultimate goal it to tear everything down and then rebuild it in their own image.

[hailreagan]

The ultimate goal it to tear everything down and then rebuild it in their own image.


Yes...........like boot camp.

[Ingator]

Because nobody can for sure know what is going to happen.


Earlier you said you were for the policy's, if you don't know what is going to happen, why support them? I mean, what if they turn out bad? Should you not wait till you know for certain before taking a position?

[Kea]

Earlier you said you were for the policy's, if you don't know what is going to happen, why support them? I mean, what if they turn out bad? Should you not wait till you know for certain before taking a position?

Because the whole liberal point is to claim crisis to eliminate and short circuit democratic debate. If they do not, they know they will lose.

[Getty Girl]

She's not radically conservative. Obama could have picked from a plethora of radically left judges, but he didn't. She is a moderate. Just because she has some left kooky positions doesn't make her a full-blown radical liberal. She is actually conservative on many different issues including the economy and that's what your not hearing from Fox News. You should thank Obama that he picked someone more to the middle




you must be one of those highschool kids writing for the Obama Press......thanks for the laugh......:))

[animalnut]

No I went to the one in New York City, Hackensack, New Jersey, and Trenton, New Jersey. I had to write an article about it for school. It wasn't as rosy as Fox made it seem and there were many hateful elements there that you saw in the video tapes from MSNBC.

The whole point of these Tea Parties was fiscal spending. Yet, the people at the Tea Parties were no where to be found when the national debt increased significantly under Bush. Then they tried to make it seem as if this was a left and right issue when it really wasn't. It was just an Obama hate-fest.

The debt did increase significantly under Bush, but please compare these deficits and get back to us. Maybe you will understand the Tea Parties a little better.

Please note the GBO's estimate.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

"Corporatist fascists"???????

This is a contradiction of terms.

"Corporatists" would be an economic system run entirely by mega-corporations (a system that exists only in science fiction).

"Fascists" are an economic system that is first and foremost socialist, but permits private businesses to operate under strict government control. Examples, Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini.

"Corporatism" is a synonym for (Italian) Fascism. Ask Mussolini.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

The debt did increase significantly under Bush, but please compare these deficits and get back to us. Maybe you will understand the Tea Parties a little better.

Please note the GBO's estimate.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

That chart is a lie, Bush's 2008 budget had a 1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit, not 400 billion.

[Charlie A]

She's not radically conservative. Obama could have picked from a plethora of radically left judges, but he didn't. She is a moderate. Just because she has some left kooky positions doesn't make her a full-blown radical liberal. She is actually conservative on many different issues including the economy and that's what your not hearing from Fox News. You should thank Obama that he picked someone more to the middle

Who could he have picked who is further to the left? Do you have a name?

[Charlie A]

That chart is a lie, Bush's 2008 budget had a 1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit, not 400 billion.

The $700 Bn bailout would have been in FQ1 FY2009. Bush's yes, but in the 2009 bucket.

[CrusaderFrank]

You should have gone to some of the Tea Party events around the country. Talk about people attacking Obama's motives. I mean every person that was there thought Obama was either a commununist, socialist, totalitarian, foreigner or Muslim. Some people thought he was gay and wanted to destroy families. I Think the Republican party has become fear-based in my opinion. It started during the Bush administration and now its carrying over into Obama's administration.

From a poster who gets his information from Jeannennenenneee GaRAfalooo

[who]

That chart is a lie, Bush's 2008 budget had a 1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit, not 400 billion.
Yup.

It's easy to make a chart look look rightnifty when you don't include the costs of two wars in the budget.

[sgtmac_46]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

:)) :)) :))

We're going to use the SAME strategy against Obama that Punky Bamster used to get power in the first place.....but thanks for the advice. ;)



Oh, and by the way......if YOU didn't believe that was a winning strategy.......you wouldn't be offering us this unsolicited advice on how we SHOULD be doing it.......unless of course you actually expect us to believe that you're honestly and genuinely wanting your opposition to win.......:)) :)) :))

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

The $700 Bn bailout would have been in FQ1 FY2009. Bush's yes, but in the 2009 bucket.

The fiscal year doesn't start in January.

[curtis123]

The only thing that concerns me is these far-reaching, massive bills being shoved through congress without even giving lawmakers the chance to read the damned things, let alone discuss and study their implications. This is not democracy.

I recall when liberals had a fit about Bush's "rubber stamp" congress. So, it's a good thing now?

[Ceasar]

Obama said in his own book all his friends in school were either marxist, communist, anarchist, or socialist, and many of his teachers as well. His preacher of 20 yrs. is a marxist. Says something about him...

[Charlie A]

The fiscal year doesn't start in January.

FY 2009 starts October 1, 2008. I thought the bailouts started around then.

I don't think Heritage would make up numbers. Perhaps misleadingly represent FY as CY, but not just make stuff up.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

FY 2009 starts October 1, 2008. I thought the bailouts started around then.

I don't think Heritage would make up numbers. Perhaps misleadingly represent FY as CY, but not just make stuff up.

They just left out some spending.

They're just being slick by ignoring the fact that the Bush Admin authored the FY2009 budget.

Obama's budget starts in October.

[Charlie A]

They just left out some spending.

They're just being slick by ignoring the fact that the Bush Admin authored the FY2009 budget.

Obama's budget starts in October.

Well we're all being slick by ignoring the fact that the President doesn't spend anything - it's congress that does that.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Well we're all being slick by ignoring the fact that the President doesn't spend anything - it's congress that does that.

No, the White House authors the annual budget, sends it to Congress for review, and then signs it.

This doesn't hold up unless you're gonna show me the massive changes Congress made to the FY2009 budget

[SHarris]

this thread has kinda got off the original topic, which was why is there so much name calling and conspiracy theories instead of policy debate (although this particular thread has had minimal name calling and actually some good debate)

and to the person who was talking advice I'll say this.

I may a little left leaning, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to sabotage anything or something like that. I was mainly just curious on why it was.

But continue on that path if you will t

[sgtmac_46]

this thread has kinda got off the original topic, which was why is there so much name calling and conspiracy theories instead of policy debate (although this particular thread has had minimal name calling and actually some good debate)

and to the person who was talking advice I'll say this.

I may a little left leaning, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to sabotage anything or something like that. I was mainly just curious on why it was.

But continue on that path if you will t The policy debate is pretty clearly delineated......but it's obvious the 'Michael Jackson's death is front page news' culture isn't smart enough to understand policy......otherwise it wouldn't have elected Punky Bamster president based on some idiotic cult of personality......SO we see what actually works.....DESTROYING those that cult of personality. ;)

[Charlie A]

No, the White House authors the annual budget, sends it to Congress for review, and then signs it.

This doesn't hold up unless you're gonna show me the massive changes Congress made to the FY2009 budget

It's not just the President... I mean, yeah you're right the Executive puts the budget together but they do so collaboratively with the CBO.

Oh this is interesting: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/after-cbo-analysis-white-house-distances-self-from-kennedy-bill.html

[tom1468]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.
My question is why you say , if the republicans ever have a chance to winning back over voters?
This isn't a football game , this isn't about republicans and democrats, this is our country.

Besides that, Obama is losing the independant voters. I bet he will not serve a second term. The problem is surviving till then. Stopping his damage cause I doubt we could ever reverse it.

I say throw all of them out of office. Leave no man standing. It is time for you to leave. Exit stage left. Clean house. It is time to show them, it is "WE THE PEOPLE"
They seem to think it is "THEM THE GOVERNMENT"

IRAN CAN STAND UP, WHY CAN'T WE STAND UP ?

[SHarris]

My question is why you say , if the republicans ever have a chance to winning back over voters?
This isn't a football game , this isn't about republicans and democrats, this is our country.

Besides that, Obama is losing the independant voters. I bet he will not serve a second term. The problem is surviving till then. Stopping his damage cause I doubt we could ever reverse it.

I say throw all of them out of office. Leave no man standing. It is time for you to leave. Exit stage left. Clean house. It is time to show them, it is "WE THE PEOPLE"
They seem to think it is "THEM THE GOVERNMENT"

IRAN CAN STAND UP, WHY CAN'T WE STAND UP ?

IMO:I think Obama has lost some support due to his issues. Republicans still no popular though because of the way that they handle things, and their lack of leadership in the public.

That would make me think conservatives should talk issues instead of talking conspiracy theories and things of that nature.

But like I said, just my opinion, perhaps I'm wrong.

[sgtmac_46]

IMO:I think Obama has lost some support due to his issues. Republicans still no popular though because of the way that they handle things, and their lack of leadership in the public.

That would make me think conservatives should talk issues instead of talking conspiracy theories and things of that nature.

But like I said, just my opinion, perhaps I'm wrong.

Conservatives ARE talking issues........AND attempting to damage Bamster........damaging Bamster, Pelosi and Reid is key to stopping his flawed policies.......they must be destroyed politically.

And the polls show that is working. ;)

[Middy]

Obama said in his own book all his friends in school were either marxist, communist, anarchist, or socialist, and many of his teachers as well. His preacher of 20 yrs. is a marxist. Says something about him...


It's certainly obvious to anyone with half a working brain, but his sycophants are deaf, dumb and blind to anything about him that causes them discomfort.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

.... I had to write an article about it for school. ...
:)) And there you have it.

[tom1468]

IMO:I think Obama has lost some support due to his issues. Republicans still no popular though because of the way that they handle things, and their lack of leadership in the public.

That would make me think conservatives should talk issues instead of talking conspiracy theories and things of that nature.

But like I said, just my opinion, perhaps I'm wrong.
I guess I am not sure what conspiracy theories you are refering to.
I hear plenty of conservatives talking issues.

Problem is, Obamas date in new york gets more media attention then the issues

[Sneaky SF Dude]

You can't win an election based on issues when the issue is giving free money to voters. Or when every time you criticize, you get accused of racism and half the country nods in agreement.

[sgtmac_46]

He has been against gay marriage, he is more conservative about Afghanistan and Iraq, he didn't even pick a radically liberal judge for the Supreme Court (She is very conservative on the economy).

:)) :)) :)) :))

Put the bong down!

[tom1468]

You can't win an election based on issues when the issue is giving free money to voters. Or when every time you criticize, you get accused of racism and half the country nods in agreement.

This is so true
Here is a video to prove your point watch from about 3 minutes in and you will hear every tea party goer get called a racist
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/16/garofalo-outdoes-herself-tea-parties-all-about-white-power-says-d-lister/

The race card is getting so old
I predict one day people will regret playing the race card
Cause people will at some point quit taking "TRUE" racism serious cause of it
I know I have begun to ignore it

[Conservative16]

You can't win an election based on issues when the issue is giving free money to voters. Or when every time you criticize, you get accused of racism and half the country nods in agreement.

I could not have said it better myself... the word "free" goes a long way in this country. People will do whatever they can to get supposed free stuff and are always looking to do so. And the democrats know that. Thats why I think the democrats purposely passed this cap and trade bill so down the line they can say they are for the little guy when they are offering free "energy coupons" to pay for people's energy bills and gas.

[tom1468]

I could not have said it better myself... the word "free" goes a long way in this country. People will do whatever they can to get supposed free stuff and are always looking to do so. And the democrats know that. Thats why I think the democrats purposely passed this cap and trade bill so down the line they can say they are for the little guy when they are offering free "energy coupons" to pay for people's energy bills and gas.
Nah, the problem with the housing market was caused by them
They scream them damn greedy lenders and here we are today, look around another attack on freedom so they can save us from them damn greedy lenders
They caused the problem

Them damn greedy corporations
Them damn greedy oil companies

See a trend yet?

Cause a problem
Then yell them damn greedy "fill in the blank"
Then move your freedon hating agenda forward based on solving the problem you created

The public never ties it to them

[Middy]

Has anybody ever heard Obama use the word "democracy" or "liberty"? I may be wrong, but I don't recall that he ever used those words in all of the speeches he made..........but I certainly don't make it my business to catch all of them.

[fava]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

1 more year of the effects of the trillion thrown away on the stimulus and 1 more year of the quadrupling of the deficit and 1 more year of the skyrocketing gas and energy prices through cap and trade and almost any alternative party would be a shoe in in the US/ That includes the Nazis.

[regretnothing]

Oh please. The liberal response to Bush was way different. Most of them gave the guy a free pass for 3 years despite him allowing the attack on 9/11 to occur.
WHAT THE ****?!?!? Bush allowed 9/11 to occur? That is complete LIBERAL ********! And would you be blaming Gore if he had won the election instead of Bush? No and neither would I! But if an attack happens now you bet your *** I will blame Obama. He has made this country a very unsafe place. He released terrorists from Gitmo, he has apologized for America to terrorist countries (I never told him to speak for me, hell no I'm not sorry). Hell he doesn't even call it the War on Terror anymore. He thinks the war was a mistake! Protecting our people and our country was a mistake! Bush FOUGHT terrorists, Obama APOLOGIZED to terrorists. And you picked him to be the leader of this country, good job.

[Gengar]

What bothers me is all the birth certificate stuff, and the "sooper sekrit mooslem" ridiculousness.

[regretnothing]

This is so true
Here is a video to prove your point watch from about 3 minutes in and you will hear every tea party goer get called a racist
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/16/garofalo-outdoes-herself-tea-parties-all-about-white-power-says-d-lister/

The race card is getting so old
I predict one day people will regret playing the race card
Cause people will at some point quit taking "TRUE" racism serious cause of it
I know I have begun to ignore it
The only people using the race card still is liberals. Conservatives don't care if he is black, white, purple, red or yellow. But because we hate what he stands for and his policies, we are called racists. The true racists are liberals IMHO

[spearmaster]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

Because a lot of Obama's motives are what creates his policies. If wanting politicians to follow the constitution is sour grapes than I'm as sour as they come.

[SHarris]

Because a lot of Obama's motives are what creates his policies. If wanting politicians to follow the constitution is sour grapes than I'm as sour as they come.

What do you think his motives are?

[TCUFan]

Oh please. The liberal response to Bush was way different. Most of them gave the guy a free pass for 3 years despite him allowing the attack on 9/11 to occur. And then Republicans tried to blame it solely on Clinton, which is the biggest joke. After the invasion of Iraq liberals got angry because the intelligence Bush collected was almost all wrong. He made clams that didn't make sense. He underevaluated the cost of the war to sell it to the American people. That's why liberals call him names.

Obama has been in office for less then 6 months and every Republican has been calling for his head, examining the way he eats his burgers and drinks his coffee. He has actually been more conservative than Republicans expected even though he won the elction by like 7 points (estimation).

Are you kidding? Seriously? He was called an illegitimate president from the day Florida was ruled in his favor.

It went downhill from there.

Funniest thing I saw during the whole thing was the Democrats calling for blood in the streets after 9/11, accusing Bush of being soft and taking his time and then....

BOOM.

We bomb the living **** out of the Taliban.

Funniest moment ever.

TCUFan

[TCUFan]

I agree that the dumbest thing the right does now is call him a closet Muslim.

TCUFan

[SHarris]

I agree that the dumbest thing the right does now is call him a closet Muslim.

TCUFan

Yeah its dumb. Dumbest is a tough call though, have you seen the new thread giving him crap for not releasing an "official" statement on the passing of Michael Jackson.

[Cutiepie]

I think it's naive and simply wrong to think that the war didn't have a huge affect on Bush's popularity



you are wrong. If that was the case then wouldn't your president have already brought them home like he promised he would. Yup, you read right. GObama! the idiot promised he would bring them home and they are NOT coming home. So, he lied and people died.

[SHarris]

You can avoid looking at what I said, and avoid looking at the poll numbers all you want.

Here are some stats. from Wikipedia
"When the invasion began in October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans and about 65% of Britons backed military action in Afghanistan."

compare that to 75% that backed the Iraq war from the start.

Yes that's not a huge difference, but my point was it was less popular. Moving along..."On September 10-12, in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, 33% approved of George Bush's handling of the "situation in Iraq", while 65% disapproved of it. [1]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq#cite_ note-Polling_Report-0)

I'm not debating if the war was right or not, I'm simply saying the Iraq war made Bush less popular. Seems like common sense to me.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

you are wrong. If that was the case then wouldn't your president have already brought them home like he promised he would. Yup, you read right. GObama! the idiot promised he would bring them home and they are NOT coming home. So, he lied and people died.

No, he's right but he's not going far enough. Launching OIF was indeed an unpopular move that could have only been made popular by parading out massive stockpiles of WMD. Why? Because the average American is a checkers player, not a chess player. The safe move for President Bush would have been benign neglect - simply do nothing. Be reactive. That's what they want. Because they think a fight starts with the first punch.

It goes back to treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Clinton had no choice and neither do any of the rest of them. They simply cannot fathom the paradigm shift required to actually deal with it.

It is linear thinking. "A crime was committed. Therefore there is a victim. There is a perpetrator. We catch the perpetrator and it's over. In fact, it's like it never happened and you have to forgive and forget."

What he's not telling you is that Obamessiah will not be held accountable for his lying campaign promises.

He and a lot of others have talked a lot of crap about what they would have and will do. Then they see the reality of it and the deadliness of the threat and it scares the bejeezus out of them.

They are children. Naive, checker playing children.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Think of President Bush's legacy if he hadn't launched OIF. He would be one of the more popular Presidents in history. And all he had to do was...nothing.

Doing the right thing in this case is one of the gutsiest moves in history and I have no doubt he was fully aware of the political risks.

[mamapajamas]

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


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

A corporation could be a government. There is no conflict with either the definition or the wikipedia entry. The wiki even goes in to say that corporatist economic ideology is fascist. I agree that such is the case.

Phony socialism is corporatism, true socialism wouldn't be fascist any more than true capitalism would be. Corporatism is the worst of capitalism and socialism mixed into one, it is what we have. I'd rather live under true socialism or true capitalism or an honest hybrid that uses the best of both. Corporatism is a horrendous system that hurts everyone but the elite.

Sorry... Wikipedia is an absolutely ROTTEN source for economic information. And the dictionary only gives "common use" definitions. In "common use", "fascism" has become a perjorative for anything that is authoritarian... which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the description of the economic system. It IS authoritarian, but then so is communism, theocracies, and many other systems. The authoritarianism isn't the defining factor, it is the RESULT.

The definitions I gave you are the REAL economic definitions as I learned them from my economics profs in college.

An example of "corporatism" would be the cases of mining and railroad towns where everything... the grocery stores, housing, etc... were owned by the companies. And remember that this has only ever worked on a strictly local scale. People were earning money then turning around and having to give it back to the companies that paid them. These "company stores", etc, were broken up by unions DECADES ago... one of the actually GOOD things unions did. The last time I heard of one was a sort of "settlement" in South Florida that was owned by Eastern Seaboard Railroad, where the workmen who did track maintenance were housed for the region, and that one went out of existence around 1959 or so. I know about that one specifically because my grandfather worked for Eastern Seaboard and used to live in one of those ramshackle apartment houses. Today, at least in the US, they exist only in science fiction novels and movies.

"Fascism" IS a socialist system that permits private companies to operate UNDER STRICT GOVERNMENT CONTROL. That IS the definition. That was how Francisco Franco's Spain worked... or failed to work. It was what pushed the Spanish people in general into becoming royalists again, and demanding the return of their king. They now have a Constitutional Monarchy similar to the UK.

The entire notion that "corporatism" can be a form of "fascism" is preposterous. Whether the company controls the government or the government controls the company are mutually exclusive ideas.

[tobybear]

Oh please. The liberal response to Bush was way different. Most of them gave the guy a free pass for 3 years despite him allowing the attack on 9/11 to occur.

:rolleyes:

So you missed Dems and Libs whining that Bush and Cheney were "Talking down the economy!" before they even took office!

You must have missed Dems and Libs whining about the "Bush Budget Cuts!"

[animalnut]

That chart is a lie, Bush's 2008 budget had a 1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit, not 400 billion.

Better let the GBO know. Also, I imagine they'll need to edit anyway, once Cap and Trade and Healthcare reform is added to the deficit.

[Lone Star]

You should have gone to some of the Tea Party events around the country. Talk about people attacking Obama's motives. I mean every person that was there thought Obama was either a commununist, socialist, totalitarian, foreigner or Muslim. Some people thought he was gay and wanted to destroy families. I Think the Republican party has become fear-based in my opinion. It started during the Bush administration and now its carrying over into Obama's administration.

This is what the RNC would like us to believe.

[penner01]

He pretended to be a lot more centrist when he campaigned. Of course, those of us who actually studied his background, his affiliations, and the very small record he had in the Senate knew what an extreme leftist he is.

Those who were getting tingly feelings down their legs and fainted were not interested in hearing anything about his past that was not favorable. They were blinded by his so-called "charisma" and his "soaring rhetoric", not realizing that he never left home without his teleprompter, and if it malfunctioned, he was lost......er....uh.....er.
Pretty sorry when that's the measure of electing a president.

[penner01]

Because the average American is a checkers player, not a chess player.
What an excellent analogy.

[penner01]

WHAT THE ****?!?!? Bush allowed 9/11 to occur?Yeah, I was going to respond to that comment too, but then I thought that is just so friggin stupid I'm not even going to say anything. And they call us tinfoil

[TCUFan]

You should have gone to some of the Tea Party events around the country. Talk about people attacking Obama's motives. I mean every person that was there thought Obama was either a commununist, socialist, totalitarian, foreigner or Muslim. Some people thought he was gay and wanted to destroy families. I Think the Republican party has become fear-based in my opinion. It started during the Bush administration and now its carrying over into Obama's administration.

Clinton was a master of taking Republican ideas and making them his own, thereby taking a lot of wind out of the GOP's sails. Obama doesn't do this. I'm wondering how you can come to the conclusion that he's somehow more conservative than we originally thought.

Especially since he intends to raise the cost of living for you. Oh, that's right, you don't mind.

TCUFan

[spearmaster]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

Because a lot of Obama's motives are what creates his policies. If wanting politicians to follow the constitution is sour grapes than I'm as sour as they come.

[SHarris]

Because a lot of Obama's motives are what creates his policies. If wanting politicians to follow the constitution is sour grapes than I'm as sour as they come.

what do you think his motives are?

[spearmaster]

While this bill may have been passed to fast, we IMO need to act quickly is doing SOMETHING

What's this SOMETHING? Why do we have to act quickly? Most of the bill is farce just like global warming.

[spearmaster]

Your saying that, not me.

Oh and wasn't that stimulus bill that Bush signed the same as "It is a major crisis that has to be fixed tody"? Would that go in the category?

You mean the stimulus bill that Bush didn't want and democrats shoved down our throats? That stimulus bill?

[spearmaster]

what do you think his motives are?

I think his motives are to force his ideology upon us and change the country into something more of his image of what he would like to see be.

[spearmaster]

I feel it very odd you fail to realize that some people think differently than you. "Us liberals" seem to have been the majority around election time, so I wouldn't act like people that support The President are some radical sect.

So what's your point? That doesn't changed the fact that Obama's policies are bad and have never worked before and still won't work?

[mamapajamas]

Clinton was a master of taking Republican ideas and making them his own, thereby taking a lot of wind out of the GOP's sails. Obama doesn't do this. I'm wondering how you can come to the conclusion that he's somehow more conservative than we originally thought.

Especially since he intends to raise the cost of living for you. Oh, that's right, you don't mind.

TCUFan

I think this notion that Obama's "more conservative than we thought" is based upon the fact that, after spending most of his campaign complaining about the "war on terror", and now has access to actual intelligence, he's found that the situation on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty much what Bush said it was.

Now he has to come to terms with the fact that Bush was right all along, and so he comes up with his own "reasoning" (never mind that Bush was already in the process of downsizing the number of troops in Iraq-- they were already below pre-Surge levels on Election Day 2008) for keeping things going the way they already were.

He actually ISN'T "more conservative"... he's just finding out that Bush was right about a lot of the things he ran against.

[homiebrah]

I'm going to go out an a limb and recommend that those who accuse the right of having a panicked reaction to Obama review the eight years of the Bush Admin and how panicked the left was, in addition to be seething about stolen elections and such.

[TCUFan]

I think this notion that Obama's "more conservative than we thought" is based upon the fact that, after spending most of his campaign complaining about the "war on terror", and now has access to actual intelligence, he's found that the situation on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty much what Bush said it was.

Now he has to come to terms with the fact that Bush was right all along, and so he comes up with his own "reasoning" (never mind that Bush was already in the process of downsizing the number of troops in Iraq-- they were already below pre-Surge levels on Election Day 2008) for keeping things going the way they already were.

He actually ISN'T "more conservative"... he's just finding out that Bush was right about a lot of the things he ran against.

Ah, so when he disappoints his believers, they call it conservatism.

I see. Wow. How weird is that?

TCUFan

[Starflight]

The whole point of these Tea Parties was fiscal spending. Yet, the people at the Tea Parties were no where to be found when the national debt increased significantly under Bush. Then they tried to make it seem as if this was a left and right issue when it really wasn't. It was just an Obama hate-fest.

Ah the old standby defense for even MORE spending. Buuuuttttttttttttttt Mm mmm mmmm mmooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmyyy he he he he dddid it Ffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrist!!!"

[spearmaster]

this thread has kinda got off the original topic, which was why is there so much name calling and conspiracy theories instead of policy debate (although this particular thread has had minimal name calling and actually some good debate)

and to the person who was talking advice I'll say this.

I may a little left leaning, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to sabotage anything or something like that. I was mainly just curious on why it was.

But continue on that path if you will t

May be a little left leaning??? You just said you agree with Obama's policies although you don't know if they'll work. Yeah you just might be a little left leaning.

[SHarris]

May be a little left leaning??? You just said you agree with Obama's policies although you don't know if they'll work. Yeah you just might be a little left leaning.

I said nobody knows if something is going to work or not. Do I believe in what he's doing for the most part, yes, but no I don't KNOW if they will work or not.

[mamapajamas]

Ah, so when he disappoints his believers, they call it conservatism.

I see. Wow. How weird is that?

TCUFan

Bingo. And yes... it's weird as hell. :doh:

[Mohawk5]

Do you mind if I ask where you were during the Bush years?

If you need to see any video of the behavior of liberal elected officials during those years I'd be glad to help.

[Oregon]

Hey I'm pretty new here (been lurking off and on since the election) so I'm not sure how things were here during the Bush admin., but I've found the attitudes of many here surprising.

I understand disagreeing with Obama's policies. I think having a good healthy debate about how to fix some of the problems are country is facing is a good thing. Unfortunately it seems as if the conservative stand has been attack Obama's motives rather then his policies.

I think if the conservatives have any chance of winning back over voters it's going to come from policy discussion, not talk of how the President is trying to ruin the country.

My question is why does the right wing (at least a large portion, especially on this forum) think that accusing the oppisition of tyranny and treason is better than promoting conservative ideals and values. If these ideas and values are truly surperior they will win over. Name calling and paranoia will not.

I know many of you here will jump in and flame me here for being a kool-aid drinking liberal, but that's not the point. I'm mearly asking why the attacking attitude that comes of as sour grapes.

Do you know what a core sample is when taken from a tree?

That's what I work with.

A core sample can show rot within - somewhere - that can't be seen easily on the outside, unless for example the tree looks pitifully discolored.

Those give a view to what is going on and can provide history depending on where damage shows or does not show inside.

Anyhow, there is stuff that Obama - or Biden - do or don't do, that is indicative of what must be going on inside their heads. It can be as little as how respectful or disrespectful they are with protocol to heads of state of other countries.

A huge one, is debt.

Anybody who is really good with finances knows that you don't go DEEP, DEEP, DEEPER in debt when you are having big financial problems paying for stuff. But whereas one disaster was caused with the housing and mortgages by abuse of finances, Obama is virtually doing the same thing - but worse.

I think that it is not either his motives or his policies, but his motives AND his policies.