[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
I’m about as conservative as it gets. I went on anti-Obama rants for a full year during the campaign, trying to convert as many people as possible. I sat with my mouth open on election night, not believing the country could actually vote for someone I considered a con-man, an unqualified one at that. A bad actor to boot.
That’s over for now. He’s two weeks in. He working to do what he thinks is best for this country that I love. I’m in his corner. I’m behind him. I hope he succeeds and wins another term because he did so freaking well. That will mean America is strong. That will mean the economy is on the move. That will mean that no Americans died because he cut the military and intelligence. He’s my president. God bless him and guide him. For me to behave like the anti-Bush morons of the past eight years would mean I’m as un-American as they are. Being a liberal means more to them than being an American. I’m an American first, second, always.
Very well said. But what the debate is, is that if he succeeds then America will be in worse shape than if his policies are not implemented. If you saddle a sputtering economy with more debt and regulations (which would be success for Obama) then the economic outcome may be disasterous.
[/quote]
I get the debate. I just hope we are all wrong about what his policies will do. Policies are only as effective (or destructive) as a time a place allows (or requires) them to be. Let’s hope this time and place in history allows this administration’s (historically destructive) policies to succeed.
So here’s a message for our new president, from someone who worked hard for his election long before it was fashionable: if you dally and temporize, the very same thing could easily happen here–perhaps just in the form of a massive tax strike, in solidarity with Messrs. Geithner and Daschle.
[/quote]
The last time Americans staged a “massive tax strike” was sometime around 1773. That one turned out pretty well.
[quote]pat wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:
<<< objective and without bias >>>
This is a fatal oxymoron. Objectivity, as far as that’s possible, will lead immediately into biases for and against a whole list of viewpoints assuming any thinking is being done whatsoever.
Nothing is stoopidder than saying “here’s my view, but other opposing views might be just as correct” when it comes to politics and religion.
Views worth holding at all are worth holding absolutely.
I meant premeditated bias. Bias regardless of the facts.[/quote]
[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
<<< I get the debate. I just hope we are all wrong about what his policies will do. Policies are only as effective (or destructive) as a time a place allows (or requires) them to be. Let’s hope this time and place in history allows this administration’s (historically destructive) policies to succeed. [/quote]
Ya know what’s befuddling about this?
There are people on this site (I’m lookin at you Doc, among others) who quite rightly harp day in and day out about learning from those who have accomplished what your goals are and spurning those who’ve failed regardless of what other alleged qualifications they may claim. but that same principle goes right out the window when dealing with something of absolute global import like the health of the largest economy in history.
History and especially contemporary history is beating us on the forehead with the founding American principle of the government that governs least governs best. Just like weight training, this does not require high end education in some cockamamie snooty classroom. It only requires an IQ somewhere north of Forest Gump coupled with the kind of objectivity that Pat was talking about.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
I’m about as conservative as it gets. I went on anti-Obama rants for a full year during the campaign, trying to convert as many people as possible. I sat with my mouth open on election night, not believing the country could actually vote for someone I considered a con-man, an unqualified one at that. A bad actor to boot.
That’s over for now. He’s two weeks in. He working to do what he thinks is best for this country that I love. I’m in his corner. I’m behind him. I hope he succeeds and wins another term because he did so freaking well. That will mean America is strong. That will mean the economy is on the move. That will mean that no Americans died because he cut the military and intelligence. He’s my president. God bless him and guide him. For me to behave like the anti-Bush morons of the past eight years would mean I’m as un-American as they are. Being a liberal means more to them than being an American. I’m an American first, second, always.
Very well said. But what the debate is, is that if he succeeds then America will be in worse shape than if his policies are not implemented. If you saddle a sputtering economy with more debt and regulations (which would be success for Obama) then the economic outcome may be disasterous.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
<<< I get the debate. I just hope we are all wrong about what his policies will do. Policies are only as effective (or destructive) as a time a place allows (or requires) them to be. Let’s hope this time and place in history allows this administration’s (historically destructive) policies to succeed.
Ya know what’s befuddling about this?
There are people on this site (I’m lookin at you Doc, among others) who quite rightly harp day in and day out about learning from those who have accomplished what your goals are and spurning those who’ve failed regardless of what other alleged qualifications they may claim. but that same principle goes right out the window when dealing with something of absolute global import like the health of the largest economy in history.
History and especially contemporary history is beating us on the forehead with the founding American principle of the government that governs least governs best. Just like weight training, this does not require high end education in some cockamamie snooty classroom. It only requires an IQ somewhere north of Forest Gump coupled with the kind of objectivity that Pat was talking about.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
<<< I get the debate. I just hope we are all wrong about what his policies will do. Policies are only as effective (or destructive) as a time a place allows (or requires) them to be. Let’s hope this time and place in history allows this administration’s (historically destructive) policies to succeed.
Ya know what’s befuddling about this?
There are people on this site (I’m lookin at you Doc, among others) who quite rightly harp day in and day out about learning from those who have accomplished what your goals are and spurning those who’ve failed regardless of what other alleged qualifications they may claim. but that same principle goes right out the window when dealing with something of absolute global import like the health of the largest economy in history.
History and especially contemporary history is beating us on the forehead with the founding American principle of the government that governs least governs best. Just like weight training, this does not require high end education in some cockamamie snooty classroom. It only requires an IQ somewhere north of Forest Gump coupled with the kind of objectivity that Pat was talking about.[/quote]
I know you admire the Founding Fathers. What I don’t understand is why you reject the moral principles they used to create the very documents you admire.
Will you clarify this? What do you understand the principles of the FFs to be vis a vis your own moral principles?
He termed other aspects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq “disappointments,” including the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.
“I don’t know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were – things didn’t go according to plan, let’s put it that way,” Bush said.
They didn’t? No shit? Whoda thunk it? But despite what he doesn’t know, yeah most of us would call those things “mistakes”.
Admitting another mistake, Bush said that he should have pursued a comprehensive immigration overhaul after the 2004 election, instead of Social Security reform. He said that Congress did not have the political willpower to tackle Social Security at the time because the program was not facing an “imminent” funding crisis.
So, he fucked up by trying to fuck up SS, but it was Congress’s fault that he wasn’t able to fuck it up the way he wanted to, and instead he just let immigration continue to be fucked up, but that wasn’t his fault anyway.
[/quote]
tme,
You haven’t changed. You made a definitive statement that was proven grossly incorrect. You said that Bush didn’t admit mistakes. You didn’t qualify that in any way.
Instead of being an adult and admitting your error, you go off on tangents.
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Hey, HH and Aussie.
Good to see you both.
I’m glad we’ve moved along!!!
Aussie, with my new account, vroom isn’t on the ignore list. Let’s see what happens when he joins the discussion.
I’ll bet HE hasn’t evolved much. I’d love to be proven wrong.
Let me add to the obama screw ups.
Roland Burris. Initially, the democrats tried to show some semblance of political honesty. That cracked when obama had a little sit down with reid/pelosi.
obama should have found a way to have a state-wide vote. He should have come out strong against the appointment to AT LEAST give the dem leadership some political cover against “racism.”
Nope, obama was more interested in getting this “quieted down” prior to his “coronation.”
I agree it would have been more seemly for Gov. Blago to resign rather than appoint the new Senator himself. But in accordance with the law: Gov. Blago still had this power, and Roland Burris was a duly appointed United States Senator. For anyone sworn to uphold the law and/or the constitution, trying to deny Roland Burris his seat was not the right thing. It would seem that in this instance, Obama did the right thing. And now I dread seeing “Obama did the right thing” taken out of context under my name. Oh, well.
[/quote]
Neal,
I disagree. He could have and should have found a way to delay the proceedings long enough for impeachment.
If he can’t figure that one out, what are we in for?
[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
I’m about as conservative as it gets. I went on anti-Obama rants for a full year during the campaign, trying to convert as many people as possible. I sat with my mouth open on election night, not believing the country could actually vote for someone I considered a con-man, an unqualified one at that. A bad actor to boot.
That’s over for now. He’s two weeks in. He working to do what he thinks is best for this country that I love. I’m in his corner. I’m behind him. I hope he succeeds and wins another term because he did so freaking well. That will mean America is strong. That will mean the economy is on the move. That will mean that no Americans died because he cut the military and intelligence. He’s my president. God bless him and guide him. For me to behave like the anti-Bush morons of the past eight years would mean I’m as un-American as they are. Being a liberal means more to them than being an American. I’m an American first, second, always. [/quote]
Hey, ProwlCat:
I hear you. But, I will give credit to obama when he does something right. That ALONE differentiates me from the BDS sufferers. For instance, him acknowledging his screw up regarding daschle was the right move.
I will also call him on every major error. I’ll do it here and in the company of every liberal, Conservative, and Independent that I know.
I think obama’s ideas put us in danger of massive inflation and his weakness encourages attack.
I hope I’m wrong. If I am, I will man-up and admit it. Again, as you know, that is far different than the slime on the far left.
As a matter of fact, you can see some of that right here on this forum.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Let me translate the American Hating/leftie line of “you’re dumb.” It simply means that the person in question doesn’t buy the kumbyaa, sappy soundtrack blaring in the background, smelly, long-haired, physically pathetic inspired, give communism another try nit-wittery.
In your case, there’s no translation required. It just means you’re dumb.
But hey, don’t let your childish preschooler view of the world stop you. If anything, you were always an entertaining clown.
[/quote]
Remember the “I only hate the American Government” is just a smokescreen for a massive inferiority complex.
JeffR
It would be interesting to know how that works, me having an inferiority complex and hating the US.
Now I could understand someone who is intellectually and morally weak to identify with an aggressor, the biggest one around, like the US government or its military, but to point out its flaws?
Hardly.
Anyway, that probably explains your Jingoism.
[/quote]
orion (bota),
The small and weak are naturally inclined to resent the strong and powerful. When people or nations are small, weak, and pathetic long enough, they begin exhibit behaviors of withdrawl or retreating when faced with difficulties.
Does anyone else notice how disorganised the first two weeks have been? It seems like they’re having something akin to an out-of-control kindergarden class behind closed doors and they’re kind of just bumbling along? I thought this guy was the smartest POTUS ever and ‘By God I’m going to hit the ground running!’ and ‘I’m tackling these problems beginning on day 1 !!’
And this stinkbomb of a stimulus bill is the result of all this? Who said Obama should be embarassed by this bill, btw?
No wonder the stock market is dropping. This guy is losing his luster FAST!!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
<<< I get the debate. I just hope we are all wrong about what his policies will do. Policies are only as effective (or destructive) as a time a place allows (or requires) them to be. Let’s hope this time and place in history allows this administration’s (historically destructive) policies to succeed.
Ya know what’s befuddling about this?
There are people on this site (I’m lookin at you Doc, among others) who quite rightly harp day in and day out about learning from those who have accomplished what your goals are and spurning those who’ve failed regardless of what other alleged qualifications they may claim. but that same principle goes right out the window when dealing with something of absolute global import like the health of the largest economy in history.
History and especially contemporary history is beating us on the forehead with the founding American principle of the government that governs least governs best. Just like weight training, this does not require high end education in some cockamamie snooty classroom. It only requires an IQ somewhere north of Forest Gump coupled with the kind of objectivity that Pat was talking about.
I know you admire the Founding Fathers. What I don’t understand is why you reject the moral principles they used to create the very documents you admire.
Will you clarify this? What do you understand the principles of the FFs to be vis a vis your own moral principles?
[/quote]
We have abandoned everything of substance espoused by men like this:
Additionally let’s not forget that this thing was being written BEFORE he took office. They had all the time in the world to bulk this and cloak it. It flew through the house because that was the strategy.
Obama had strong union support to get elected. I wonder how the unions now feel after he was pressured by the EU to strike the “Buy American Steel” clause for our infrastructure spending. He immediately withdrew in less than 24 hours.
Yet the majority of America speaks out about this political and economic theft of a bill, and he does not budge.
Obama will cater to other nations before he caters to his own. This is becoming evident in his actions and policies.
Now Russia is acting like they want to play nice for Afgan supply lines. I guarantee they will fuck us at the first turn. They’ll get away with it because Obama will fall for it, and they recognize we are now castrated as a world power.
Yes, he needs to stop using his trump card…It’s petty and arrogant and will lead to his lynching if he doesn’t start giving actual answers to questions…Yes he won, but so did all those Republican Senators he used it against. He is there to represent the people every day not every 4 years. The sentiment I get even in the most liberal media is there is too much garbage in the current plan. “I won” doesn’t make it any better. He has used this line twice, he needs to stop it.
He also needs to take into account that a lot of people who voted for him did so because of an incendiary hatred of G.W.B and anything associated, and not because of hope, change or his policies.
It’ seems he is finding out that even with a favorable house and senate he can’t get things done just 'cause he wants to. Believe it or not, he does not have the votes to pass this bill in the senate. I did not realize that it requires a 60% majority to pass it.
