Repubs write off 2012

Discussion in 'Politics' started by arkfarmbear, May 1, 2011.

  1. arkfarmbear

    arkfarmbear New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I don't know how to do the trick that links my posts to the source of my information. Sorry. I know that pisses off many of the more educated folks at LPSG.
    The New York Times recently (4-28-11) reported that the pooh-bahs in the upper echelons of the Republican party have already written off winning the 2012 presidential race. The cost of mounting a successful campaign are expected to cost $1 million. With Haley Barbour's announced decision to not run the old wise men (those with money and influence) are concentrating on the 2016 election instead.
     
  2. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    I wouldn't count on that. Haley Barbour was never a serious contender anyway, too Southern and too much baggage. There are more viable candidates lurking out there -- Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Mitch Daniels should he decide to run. There could be some others I haven't thought of, which may be an indication of how lackluster they are.

    The real showdown is going to be in the congressional races anyway, and that's what people should really be concerned about. The Repugs and their Teabag friends will be trying to increase their gains in the House and take over the Senate, bringing Obama's second term agenda to a standstill. It's going to be more expensive and uglier than anything we've seen yet.




    p.s. If you want to post a link, just try copying and pasting the google link into your text.
     
    #2 maxcok, May 1, 2011
    Last edited: May 1, 2011
  3. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is pretty much the worst starting post I've ever seen.

    But since that doesn't add anything, the number is $1 billion, which is what Obama is targeting, and you're very naive if you don't think they're going to mount a huge campaign costing at least $500 mil.

    Whether they can win is a different story. Obama is a bad president, but their candidate pool is really terrible.
     
  4. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    This is pretty much the worst third post I've ever seen.

    While, obviously, the debate on Obama's effectiveness will be clouded by one's feelings toward his legislative agenda, it's doubtful we can call him a "bad" president. He has managed to tackle the issues he promised to tackle in his campaign. That's usually the hallmark of a "good" president, no?

    As to the premise that the republicans have written anything off... well... I doubt that very much. The current cesspool of teaparty sycophants gets the most attention, but that doesn't mean they'll be winning any primaries. IF the republicans can manage to run a more centrist candidate who doesn't immediately run to the base (read: dash headlong into the far-right's socially crippling agenda), we may see a serious election battle, yet.

    Also, I agree with Max that it's the House and Senate races we need to watch more closely. We've seen the havoc the teaparty can wreck in the House. Let us hope we can keep them out of the Senate, and maybe replace a few of them in the House, too. I hear grumblings that a certain House Republican from Wisconsin is facing major unfavorables back in his home state.
     
  5. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. Not if you're paying any attention at all.

    Yes he tackled healthcare. No he did not tackle it well.
    Yes he tackled financial regulation. No he did not tackle it well.
    He has not really ended any war, and in fact expanded or started others.
    He has not ended any torture or illegal detention policies.
    He has continued tax cuts to the rich, expanding them in some cases, and raised taxes slightly on some poor.

    I could go on. Obama is only a good president if you have no fucking idea what's going on.
     
  6. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    You're still trying to convince people of that, oh mighty "uber liberal" of the left, eh? :rolleyes:

    You could go on, but your seething arrogance and pretentious attitude for being a self proclaimed "super liberal" would get in the way and make you look like an ass. You've been saying this nonsense for months, and still most people that would tend to agree with you wind up thinking you're a mental case because you sound just like the people you are technically against for a whole different set of reasons. Obama is by no stretch of the imagination the best president, but he's only a bad one if you actually expected him to do everything you ever wanted, to your EXACT specifications, with no regard to anyone else's opinions even if it means being the oppressive tyrant we all blamed Bush as being, in one term. Apparently you have, because we're not even in the election year yet and since 2010 you've done nothing but talk shit about him. That speaks VOLUMES, it really does.

    The people you come after with this ignorance all pay attention and are willing to take into real consideration things that an arrogant individual such as yourself never would. But go ahead, keep pretending that you know something that the rest don't. Keep acting as if you're the one that remembers everything and that you're surrounded by nothing but people with short term memories. You'll be acting alone the more you do it.
     
    #6 B_VinylBoy, May 1, 2011
    Last edited: May 1, 2011
  7. cruztbone

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Capitola CA USA
    sinwin, you have either been in a coma for the last 2 and half years or are a paid GOP operative.
    Obama has taken on all the issues you mentioned and handles them VERY well, considering the huge corporate interests opposing him.
    yes, Obama will probably win reelection, simply because there are NO GOP candidates with ideas to solve problems that benefit the vast majority of people. there are NO GOP candidates who are smart enough, hard workiing enough or classy enough to beat him. period.
     
  8. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    In one post I critique sinwin and in the next I defend him.
    Sinwin is right to some degree that Obama hasn't handled certain issues as well as he could. Health Care is an obvious choice to focus on, because many thing that Americans were for such as a Public Option were nixed just to receive bipartisan support from Republicans. This could also be tied with a GOP electorate that was hell bent on obstructing everything that was presented at the time, but the fact does remain that the bill could have done more and most polls do reflect that. However, unlike sinwin I will give Obama credit for at least being able to take a few steps forward to make real reform happen. I'm sure there will be a revisit to Health Care Reform in the future, especially if Obama gets re-elected, and then we can try to keep pushing forward. Gtmo is another disappointment since he did campaign on closing it. However, this can also be tied to the GOP and their continued obstructions in Congress. According to sources such as Politifact, Obama has definitely kept more promises than broken or compromised. Alas, some people are just not going to be happy regardless of how hard he tries. I've come to accept that, but I will not accept anyone trying to tell me that I don't know a thing just because I'm not as radical as the next person.

    There are a few that could be surprises. But many of them are staying very silent right now and are allowing the lunatics take stage (and ultimately make complete fools of themselves). Someone like Pawlenty or Romney could have a shot, albeit a small one. Same goes for Ron Paul, alas, he'd get more support if he ran as the Independent he tries to position himself as instead of the (R) he holds onto for obvious political advantage. The rest aren't going to do a single thing but burn themselves out from overexposure and complete stupidity.
     
  9. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    At this point it looks like the Repbs are throwing in the towel, look what whats to run. From frothy mix Rick Santorim to the fat preacher Huchabee and not to leave out the Oxford educated Palin sisters Sarah and Michele. So far there is not a Repb running that can be taken seriously.
     
  10. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    Vinyl pretty much answered this for me with this,:

    I especially like the part in blue. It's like Vinyl read my mind. Any questions?
     
  11. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Too much is at stake for the GOP to sit out 2012. But it seems to me that the big question is who the Republicans are right now? The only things they seem to share in common are a hatred of Obama and a veneration of Ronald Reagan.

    Moderates like Romney and Mitchell simply won't be accepted by the party base, and the base is the ones with the loudest voices during the primaries and caucuses. Huckabee has morphed from the "compassionate conservative" persona he tried to engineer in 2008 to a fire-breathing demagogue intent on limiting women's reproductive rights and re-instating DADT. Perhaps his experience as a Fox News contributor has taught him that those are winning positions, but they'll play poorly to Independents in swing states. Besides, why give up a sure (and lucrative) gig for such an exhausting and quixotic quest now?

    Tea Party faves enjoy little if any prestige among the party's intelligentsia (for obvious reasons); Donald Trump's toe-dipping is recognized nearly everywhere as equal parts vanity project and an especially sick sort of joke/publicity move; Newt is equally unelectable; Huntsman is both unknown, a former Obama appointee and a Mormon: need I say more?

    So who've they got whom the Teabaggers won't slow-roast but who doesn't make Establishment Republicans openly cringe? I follow these things pretty closely and come up short-handed every time. They can appease the fringiest part of the base with a VP (much as they attempted last time), but who're they gonna put on top of the ticket?

    Unlike Democrats, Republicans seem to have rewarded loyalty and pecking-order over dark horse candidates: think Bob Dole and GHW Bush; even by that standard, they come up short.

    I will say that this thread is a strange place to list Obama's compromises and disappointments to the Democratic base. Anyone wishing to start such a topic is welcome to: there's a button at the top of the forum aptly named New Thread.
     
  12. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I'm just a simple liberal. If you think I'm an "uber liberal" I don't know what to tell you. I think the problem is that you have latched some of your identity into the tribal mentality where you need to support the Democrats even if they're functionally only slightly better than the GOP. In reality, neither party is liberal, and both are largely conservative, obviously with the GOP being more so.

    A few members of the party are liberal, like Kucinich, but that's a small subset.

    I generally don't debate on this board because the moderators are fairly lax compared to many others I read, but I'm hardly the a superliberal, and hardly holding fringe beliefs. It's a mistake to consider anyone to the left of you as crazy.

    This is what's called a straw-man argument. I certainly didn't expect him to live up to my exact specifications, but I also did not expect him to expand upon things that I hated under Bush. I did not expect him to cave as hard or as fast on every progressive issue, and be basically worthless on many others.

    You can make a fairly solid argument that Obama is the right of Bush, as far as major policies go. Forget party politics and look at the policies. Obama is seriously talking about making cuts to SS, even Bush couldn't touch it. And many people will defend it because it's coming from a Dem and not a Repub.

    Tell me, what would Obama have to do to make you consider him a bad president. Literal death camps?

    I think most presidents are terrible, be it D or R. I had hopes for Obama, but it turns out he was just another corporatist piece of shit with a good TV personality.
     
  13. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. Why should I care about the fantasy of what's going on in my head that you two have? Does it make you feel better about supporting him?

    It's easier to argue against your construct, but I gave a couple of really basic failings that he has. The problem with Obama is that through the magic of Identity Politics, people are willing to accept things from him that they would have raged against if the other party did. I don't know if that's the case with you two, but it's something I have seen often in these conversations.
     
  14. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    The big problem is, you have no idea what people like joyboytoy79 or myself would "accept" or "rage against" depending on political affiliation. That is why you're assuming such fallacies, attaching it to other people who disagree with you and talking shit about people having "fantasies in their head". Some people, understanding that no politician is ever perfect or with absolute rule to see out all ideological beliefs to the fullest, are willing to take the good with the bad with any politician and come to their own decision as to their worth.

    We obviously disagree on the worth of Obama. That's where it could stay, however, as I stated before you just LOVE to talk shit. How many times can you refer to Obama supporters as stupid? As unintelligent? As not knowing what the fuck is going on in America? There's only so many times you can make digs like that before the people who would normally stand on your side would tell you to fuck off. Furthermore sinwin, you haven't seen a damn thing in these conversations except for what you WANT to see. You do not have any proper "fix" on my political ideologies or beliefs, and you're an immature and insecure fool to keep suggesting that you do. You may have seen a lot of people say this and that on LPSG, but I'm not a lot of people. joyboytoy79 is also not a lot of people. We're individuals who should be treated as such before we're any pathetic label you can muster up in your stubborn little mind.
     
  15. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Really? There was a statement you made back in the day when a link to a certain political ideological test was reposted. What did you call yourself then? I believe it was "liberal as fuck". http://www.lpsg.org/224253-political-alignment-test-time-4.html#post3329482

    So am I to assume that you somehow changed that position from then until now? Was that just a joke? Was it also one when you took it the first time because you did post your past and present results at that particular moment? And could you really change your mind like that in roughly 3 months given your post history?

    You really need to stop trying to think about what I latched my identity to or where my mindset is. Last time I checked, you're not a shrink so don't talk to me like one. I don't support "Democrats" or "Republicans". I support the politicians who I think will do a better job. Period.

    But since I could give a rat's ass about the party and would rather look at the individual more than anything, whether either party is "liberal" is of no concern to me even though I tend to lean left with some of my beliefs.

    And Kucinich has his issues as well, like when he wanted to sue a cafeteria for a chipped tooth, and proposed an outrageous sum that costs more than the average person getting several crowns & root canals. But that's a whole different issue.

    No. Just you. I wouldn't be so silly to assume that you speak for everyone who may be "more liberal" than myself.

    Good that you know what one looks like, considering that you make them yourself.

    I rest my case. But continue.

    But I won't because overall he isn't. There will always be some overlap & similarities between certain politicians, but most people realize that Obama's actions are ones of a Centrist that leans to the left.

    But I'm not defending it because of that. Alas, that doesn't stop you from assuming it since I support Obama and think he's doing a decent job. :rolleyes:

    Ultimately, things like Social Security and other entitlement programs do need to be reformed. There's no question about that. At the same time, I do feel that there are many other areas in our nation's budget that should be addressed FIRST before we deal with any programs that have a grave impact on poor & middle class people. Many people in the GOP are doing nothing but focus on these programs and willingly ignore things such as Wall Street Reform, Bank Reform, Real Estate Reform, Defense, Energy & Taxation under the guise of "fiscal responsibility", when in reality they're attacking sources of major funding for Democrats for next year's election.

    I'm not even going to waste my time trying to answer such a stupid & snarky question. I don't think Obama is a bad president. And I'm not going to give you the benefit of some twisted forum companionship by giving you some lofty, ideological benchmark he has to meet before I change my mind.

    That speaks volumes, really it does.

    In reality, you didn't. Because you think most presidents are terrible, what in God's name made you think that Obama would be any different? Say what you want about me, but come off being VERY pessimistic and it shows.
     
    #15 B_VinylBoy, May 3, 2011
    Last edited: May 3, 2011
  16. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    That doesn't really make me a super liberal, but I am pleased to see you follow my posting so closely. That makes me very liberal for that particular test.

    I can't really think of any other reason for calling me insane for saying Obama is a bad president when he clearly is one.

    And a pretty inconsequential one. Looking at his legislative history, he's one of the few actual liberals in government.

    Not doing a very good job of seperating the two then, because I'm hardly saying anything new unheard of. If you're only reading this board, perhaps my beliefs are fringe.

    No, you don't rest your case because you don't know what the term means. A strawman argument is where you make up the other person's position, rather than debating what they actually said, because it's an easier target. For instance, if I say that Obama is actually quite conservative, and you accuse me of not getting the exact laundry list of things I wanted and therefore being unrealistic, that is a strawman.

    What you highlighted in that sentence was "hyperbole". Hope this helps.

    Drawing down Iraq while expanding Afghanistan? At best even with him.
    Additional wars in Libya and Yemen? Possibly worse.
    Continuing and expanding tax cuts, including a small increase on the poor? Worse than Bush.
    Continuing unlawful detention and refusing non-tribunal trials? Same.
    Authorizing assassinations on US citizens? (yemen and elsewhere). Worse.
    Attempting to cut SS and Medicare? Worse.

    That's just a few. Obama the Candidate was a centrist that leaned maybe left, in the distorted world of US politics. Obama the President is far more conservative than many conservative presidents. Even on social issues he's only made lip service to supporting. I judge him by his actions.

    Again, objectively he's not much better than Bush, and possibly worse. Unless you were a Bush supporter? Bush faced a huge uproar for even trying to touch SS. I can't think of another reason why you'd suddenly be giving a pass to such a conservative president, as a liberal.


    "Entitlement" is a conservative framing of the programs. So you've adopted that.

    And you've adopted the idea that it needs to be reformed, also a conservative narrative.

    Obama hasn't made any serious moves on any of those fronts, and was instrumental in killing any real Wall St./Bank reform. The best you can say is CEO pay, and that's a mere sideshow designed to placate you. Unless you think the Prop trading ban is going to reign the banks in.

    As I expected, you are literally unable to do it. I've seen that before.

    If you can't come up with circumstances on which you'd abandon a position, I don't it's a very rational one.

    All cynics are disappointed optimists. I figured that Obama would get a few things through, like the public option or pharmaceutical price negotiation. He's been far, far worse than I expected, and that was even assuming that he'd be a centrist.

    I thought I set my bar low, I had in fact set it far too high.
     
  17. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Don't flatter yourself. :rolleyes:
    When people make foolish remarks it's not that hard to forget them. Besides, this isn't the first time you or I sparred on this issue.

    It's rather funny to watch a declared liberal argue like the typical Republican. You know, repeat something over and over again in the hopes that others believe it to be true? You'll never convince me of that so you might as well come up with a different tactic. You tried that last time and the time before that, remember? :rolleyes:

    Liberal by your ideological definition, of course. Alas, you don't define what is liberal and what is not regardless if you adopt this "smarter than everyone" like persona on this board.

    Yes, you do tend to be a broken record when it comes to Obama. :rolleyes:

    A U.N. decision and not just one made by the United States. Nine other countries voted to escalate things in Libya & Yemen as well. It's short-sided and infantile of you to just blame Obama for this. Besides, Bush actually pondered the idea of invading Iran so it's not as if Obama is worse especially since he has much more ally support for Libya/Yemen and Bush didn't even have an ounce of it for Iraq.

    A temporary compromise from 2010 in order to protect other important things from going down the tubes such as Unemployment Insurance which was much more immediate and necessary. Plus it was only for two years and he's shown in recent budget discussions that he doesn't plan to extend them again. Not worse than Bush, unless you think he was supposed to be the oppressor and shove legislation down the throats of people and ignore the other two branches and political party of government. And I already think I know the answer to that.

    Oh, you mean Bradley Manning? Yeah, he's no longer being unlawfully detained. He was transferred last month to the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility with a pre-trial hearing expected in May or June to determine whether a trial is warranted. It's taking a long time to try him, and yes that does suck. But there are many things that need to be done in this country. On top of that there are tons of people who are trapped in the legal system in our country, yet I don't see you making any stink about them.

    That US citizen happens to be Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them. He's also linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November, and to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25 with a bomb in his panties. Although born in New Mexico, he's now working with Al Qaeda is are supposed to be the enemy. American citizenship doesn't automatically protect you if you engage in terrorist activities that target innocent American civilians. Just ask Scott Roeder about that.

    But nice distortion, though.

    Actually, many current members of the GOP are presenting legislation to try and do that and not Obama. Or did you think Paul Ryan was a black man? :rolleyes:

    And in your distorted world, the one person you ever brought up to be "liberal" in your eyes is Dennis Kucinich. That speaks VOLUMES. :rolleyes:

    DADT was more than lip service. But since you don't suck dick I wouldn't expect you to pay attention to such matters.

    You know damn well I didn't vote for Bush, so stop with the disingenuous bullshit.

    Actually it's a legal term that does apply to things such as Social Security, Welfare and several other social programs... not just a "conservative soundbite" as you so ignorantly put it. And if you actually pay attention to other things besides the few issues Obama let you down on and your constant battle to prove that you're the biggest liberal on the board you may have recognized that.

    An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. link

    Beyond that, I don't give a damn if you think I'm using a term that Conservatives framed. That would only matter to someone like you who thinks they define what being a liberal is, and you clearly don't despite repeating it over and over again.

    It does. All programs need to be looked over and readjusted every so often to better improve their services. In a progressively changing society, I wouldn't expect programs that were created several decades ago to be perfect and require no revisions. The needs & demands of everyday people now are different from the 60s or 70s.

    Seriously, you need to stop trying to paint everyone else around you as being "more Conservative" than you. Don't you tire of these pointless, political dick measuring contests?

    Again, with opposition blocking any real progress he decided to compromise. So instead of the big strides he could have taken, he took smaller steps and that pissed you off. That's your problem and not mine.

    What I can't do and what I won't do are two entirely different things. It's pathetic and exceedingly childish of you to think you could ever present something to me that I can't do. The question you provided was nothing more than snarky & sarcastic bullshit framed to look like an honest inquiry. Therefore I feel it doesn't deserve an answer. In other words, I won't answer it.

    For more clarity, look up "can't" and "won't" in a dictionary. It seems as if your self-absorbed intellectualism has prevented you from remembering the definitions of words you should have learned and put to memory on The Electric Company. :rolleyes:

    My view of life isn't written in binary. That's why I don't reduce myself to such overly simplistic beliefs. I don't just go by "If" and "Then"... I also ask "Why".

    And I'm optimistic, yet skeptical. It takes a lot to make me disappointed and I have a lot of patience.

    We all did to some degree, but Democrats didn't have the votes necessary in the Senate at the time. Remember? Or are you blaming him for not being able to convince his political opposites and a few Blue Dogs who were bent on obstructing him for not being more forceful?

    YAWN. We already know what you expected. Let's move on because this thread isn't about you.

    You think a lot of things. But not everything you think is correct in the eyes of other adults. So sorry if your expectations weren't met with Obama... however, considering your responses it seems as if the only person who would satisfy you is yourself. That, or Kucinich which is rather comical for reasons that aren't completely political.
     
    #17 B_VinylBoy, May 3, 2011
    Last edited: May 3, 2011
  18. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh huh.

    Ah, you hold a position that you will never ever doubt. That sure is intellectually honest.

    Liberal by objective definitions, even though US discourse skews everything massively to the right.

    And I don't think I'm smarter than everyone, just smarter than some.

    I'm hardly the only person disappointed in Obama, or saying he's a conservative and a bad president.

    Don't call me infantile when the US pushed for this and the US basically gets what it wants in the UN. It's naive to think that the US wasn't the major player behind this move.

    Ah yes, the temporary tax cut. I remember when Bush passed a temporary tax cut. Don't worry though, I'm sure that a tax that expires before a presidential election will not get renewed...

    And as far as that UI extension goes, you really ate that up didn't you? There was no way that wasn't getting passed. That's why people observing were so hard on Obama for that cave-in.

    No I was talking about the many other people detained in various black sites, Guantanamo, etc. Considering this is something that Obama specifically campaigned on, the "oh there's a lot to do" line is especially hollow apologetic bullshit.

    I'm a huge advocate of judicial and prison reform in the US. Are you seriously giving me shit for not covering literally every single issue in one thread? Make the thread, I will bury this board in info on it.


    That US citizen happens to be Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them. He's also linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November, and to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25 with a bomb in his panties. Although born in New Mexico, he's now working with Al Qaeda is are supposed to be the enemy. American citizenship doesn't automatically protect you if you engage in terrorist activities that target innocent American civilians. Just ask Scott Roeder about that.

    But nice distortion, though.
    [/quote]

    Ah so you just have to be identified as someone we think might be working with the enemy in order for the government to skip that whole "due process" thing and go straight to capital punishment. That comforts me as an American citizen, I'm sure there's no way that can be abused.

    This is kind of exactly what I"m saying when I'm talking about liberals accepting shit from Obama that they would have fought under Bush.

    America: Innocent until proven guilty or until we say we think you're guilty and then SHUT UP AND DON'T QUESTION IT.

    Actually the president specifically assigned "entitlement hawks" to his deficit committee, itself something that he created after Congress refused to, and then has since been on the record many times talking about SS reform and Medicare "reform. I'm sorry, did you think Simpson-Bowles was a liberal plan? That's where the left is starting from.

    And since I know you have problems with the term, this is another example of a strawman. I never said Kucinich was the only liberal, just one of the few. Bernie Sanders is another liberal.

    Nice attempt to tell me what I do and don't care about, but you'd be absolutely wrong on everything in that sentence. Surely you can't be ignorant to the many, MANY LGBT groups that have shit on Obama for his weaksauce stance on queer rights. He hasn't stopped any progress, but he hasn't advocated for any either.

    I'm damning him for not doing good enough, and you have the balls to tell me I don't care about gays? That's fucked up.

    Then stop supporting a guy who is legislatively no different. Stop buying what he's selling, and look at his record. If you're happy with what you've got, with a few minor things better than Bush in some areas, then you really need to re-examine what you're looking for in a politician.

    You assume I don't know that. It's a weighted term and a dogwhistle just as much as "states rights" is.

    Again, you keep trying to paint me as trying to be an arbiter or liberalism, when I'm simply asking that we don't talk about conservative bullshit as if it were liberal.

    You are either seriously naive or seriously uninformed about SS and Medicare. You seem to think they're not constantly being looked at, or that the "reform" that is being talked about is anything but trying to cut and privatize them.

    Nope. You're buying into the rotating villain crap that is designed to sell to tribal politics types.

    The Obama administration and Democratic committee leaders specifically killed the major reforms in both those legislations, which is why I specifically used them as examples. You can't blame "them" when you make a deal to kill the provision that is causing Medicare insolvency, and then talk about "fixing" Medicare.

    You're not nearly as informed as you think you are. This has nothing to do with me not willing to compromise.

    Ah yes, it would just be too much of a loss of face to give that up, after spending countless posts arguing every single line of what I type.

    That is surely the reason.

    Yeah and I'm asking you why this question is the one thing you're not willing to answer.

    You can't blame the Blue Dogs or GOP for things that Obama personally killed through direct deals.

    No, I'd vote for any number of people who aren't terrible. None of them are running, however.
     
  19. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Actually, my stance and positions on political matters (and many other things) are always open to change. You just lack that ability to change them.

    I've had my critiques about the man myself.

    Actually, you are the only person I ever saw on this board trying to call Obama a Conservative. Another "C" word has been used by many people to describe him and I've used it as well. The term is "centrist", and a pragmatic one as well. As for him being a "bad president", most people leaning to the right say that about him with every waking moment. You're the only so-called "liberal" who bashes him as equally around here.

    Do you have any proof of this or are you just going by your suspicions based on your disdain towards the current president being a "conservative" in your eyes? Can you verify that the US pressured the other nine countries for the escalation in Libya or are you just assuming this? You know damn well you're gonna have to back that up if you expect me to even pander this.

    Less speculation and more facts, please. We can all grab crystal balls and predict the future. But this discussion and debate is about what we can actually prove.

    Actually, I know enough people who lost their job during this recession and were on the brink of running out of UI. They were all worried and for good reasons that go far beyond politics, and it's very ignorant of you to sit here and imply that they were gullible because of what twisted beliefs you harbor about certain political figures and what you think they're going to do next. Again, less speculation and more facts. UI was on the table. Considering the actions of several GOP figures and the extreme stances they are taking with Unions, Abortion, Voter's Rights (and other similar pieces of cultural legislation which actually passed in their respected states), to go by some politically bigoted hunch would have been stupid. Obama didn't want to take chances and risk being the person who allowed the opposition cut UI so he compromised. Seriously, what problem do you have with compromising?

    Obama campaigned on SEVERAL things and no president in history is able to see every one of their campaign promises through. For you to isolate one or a handful of issues, knowing the workload that faced our nation on so various levels, is the true representation of hollowed bullshit. And BTW, I don't "apologize" for the President. He doesn't need me to protect him from ideological blowhards.

    Are we diverging into red herring arguments now? Never once did I tell you to cover every single issue in one thread. But if you're going to debate someone and list a series of bullet points, if you were looking to have an honest discussion you would have provided some level of detail with the points you were trying to raise. Instead, you list overly generalized things such as "Continuing and expanding tax cuts, including a small increase on the poor" and expect everyone to know what the hell you're talking about. And BTW, what's the problem with you making your own threads? Why does ANYONE have to make one for you? Talk about your lame cop-outs...

    Again, sinwin... less speculation and MORE FACTS. I have no interest in debating you over the worth of a president based on your own suspicions, paranoias and fears over someone in office breaking the rules. I'm not your therapist.

    Are you through preaching? :rolleyes:

    This is a dishonest question.
    As established in this and many other posts, you have a preconceived notion as to what is liberal and how one is supposed to act if they associate themselves with that title. Any diversion off of this strict path is "not liberal" and then is subject to critique and attack. And BTW, I never once mentioned or even made a hint about the Simpson-Bowles plan. But that's not stopping you from trying to shove that down my throat and act as if I'm endorsing it all because I stated that entitlement programs be reviewed and be open for possible reform.

    It wasn't a straw-man... it was sarcasm.
    And Bernie Sanders is currently registered as an Independent even though his ideologies are to the left.

    Not as ignorant as you to assume that I, as a gay man, wouldn't be versed on these issues. You think I'm just spending my days partying it up at Alegria or something? I strongly advise you to watch your mouth here. As a gay man who has lived and breathed the life longer than you knew what the word meant, who has been affected by every action made by our government since the discovery of the HIV virus in the early 80s, to see all of the puzzle pieces put in place to get DADT repealed and to understand how long these things will take in order to pass in our society (regardless if one has the moral high ground or not), you are in NO position to question or even try to quiz me on these matters. You can find it perplexing that I have a lot of patience and is willing to put people in office who may allow progress in these matters without trying to forcefully advocate them. But just like so many of my gay brethren who were ready to throw Obama under the bus for not pushing Same Sex Marriage legislation but were praising him like Harvey Milk when he signed the repeal of DADT, many of these people need to just calm down and let the man do his job.

    Do keep in mind that you're damning him for not doing good enough based on your OWN beliefs. You're not doing myself or any other gay/lesbian person a favor so don't pat yourself on the back at my expense.

    Sinwin, I am so sick of you constantly implying that I don't pay attention to Obama's record. Find a new damn argument. You've been saying this shit for the last year and a half and it's tired.

    Who the hell are you to tell me what I need to re-examine?
    Unlike you, I knew we weren't getting a president that was going to be the almighty liberal who was going to reverse everything that was Bush and bring forth a renaissance of complete liberalism. If anyone needs to re-examine their choices, it's YOU.

    But that didn't stop you from assuming that somehow I was cohering to conservative thinking all because I used a word that you didn't like due to the way it has been used in some political circles. Sometimes it pays to try and understand what a person is trying to say, instead of doing a quick scan for buzzwords and sounding the alarms.

    And here's the thing, sinwin... I DON'T GIVE A FUCK about whether something is perceived as liberal or conservative. I just want to talk issues and the facts based on what our country needs right now. You don't need to put a (D) or an (R) on everything in order to do that.

    Tell me, sinwin... WHERE do you get the idea that I'm suggesting privatization out of this paragraph - All programs need to be looked over and readjusted every so often to better improve their services. In a progressively changing society, I wouldn't expect programs that were created several decades ago to be perfect and require no revisions. The needs & demands of everyday people now are different from the 60s or 70s.

    Only a severely narrow minded, partisan hack would try and spin such a statement. Never once did I imply or suggest that we privatize SS or Medicare. But I'm not naive or seriously uninformed about them to know that the programs can be improved. The same people who don't want it to be privatized are also the same people who can come up with solutions to make their services better. I'm really sick of you trying to put a (D) or an (R) on every thought being presented to you.

    More informed than you could ever realize. You are in no position to judge my intellect on political matters, especially when you're so frantically trying to label every word typed as "Liberal" or "Conservative" before you come up with a response.

    And you do exactly the same thing, sinwin, so don't be a fuckin' hypocrite.

    I gave you my response and I don't give a damn if you don't like the result either. I am not going to sit here and debate with you over what Obama needs to do in order to be viewed as a "bad president" in my eyes. I'm not here to nurture your disappointments. And I'm not here to make you feel better about being pissed off for voting for Obama. I won't answer the question. Period. Move the fuck on.

    Yes you can. Just look at their voting records and the stances they took during key legislative debates. Every person is responsible for their own actions. Obama is only one of three branches of Congress. If you want to make an argument about the administration's lack of communication on important issues you can, and in many ways I'd agree with you. However, to blame Obama for compromising when members of his base decided to deflect when Harry Reid ran the Senate and Nancy Pelosi ran the House is extremely short sighted.

    Then do us all a favor and stay home in 2012. Seriously, I'm so sick of your bitching.
     
    #19 B_VinylBoy, May 5, 2011
    Last edited: May 5, 2011
  20. B_Doodleman

    B_Doodleman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    LA
    I think in the last 100 years, only three or so Presidents have not been reelected. The odds are in President Obama's favor. I think Republicans have a candidate in 2016 in Chris Christie of New Jersey. He won't run in 2012 because he plans on staying as long as possible in New Jersey to do what he thinks is best for that state.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted