PDA

View Full Version : Debate II



TheLeviathan
10-17-2012, 07:19 PM
Clearly an Obama win. To me, the debate was won on the Libya exchange. He had a nice zinger about pensions, but as a thinking person I know they're both rich and guilty of the same thing so that gives me a big grain of salt.

But Libya is potentially a massive black eye for the administration in the god-awful, despicable way they handled a tragic situation....and yet somehow Romney totally screwed up that attack. That was a huge miss.

drjim
10-17-2012, 08:34 PM
I'm a little biased but I thought that Obama clocked Romney pretty good for much of the debate. I think Obama will regain his advantage (especially with women) and that will be the difference on election day. History shows that the third debate does little to move the numbers and I think that barring any significant gaffes that will be the case again.

Brock Beauchamp
10-17-2012, 09:06 PM
Obama cleaned up on Libya. He had the perfect response that left Romney on very thin ice to continue the attack. Obama put on his serious face and delivered a hell of a response that was only helped by Romney's blundering over the "act of terror" comment, which made him look pretty dense.

TheLeviathan
10-17-2012, 09:25 PM
Obama cleaned up on Libya. He had the perfect response that left Romney on very thin ice to continue the attack. Obama put on his serious face and delivered a hell of a response that was only helped by Romney's blundering over the "act of terror" comment, which made him look pretty dense.http://twinsdaily.com/images/misc/progress.gif Reply With Quote (http://twinsdaily.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=58625)

I still think Romney should attack that. I don't think most Americans know the truth about that and about how terrible it was handled start to finish. Romney royally screwed up a major opportunity, but he should keep at it.

PseudoSABR
10-18-2012, 03:26 AM
Obama was clearly back on, but Romney's already an acceptable candidate because of the first debate--so as far as the polls and the outcome are concerned, I'm thinking a small national bounce for Obama (one to two point lead) that will eventually result in a large electoral win, but with a narrow popular vote.

I'm still beside myself with how arrogant the Obama campaign's approach was to the first debate. They had the opportunity to give Romney a resounding defeat and they blew it. The presidency won't be affected by their miscalculation, but I bet the down ballot contests will be.

Brock Beauchamp
10-18-2012, 07:25 AM
Obama cleaned up on Libya. He had the perfect response that left Romney on very thin ice to continue the attack. Obama put on his serious face and delivered a hell of a response that was only helped by Romney's blundering over the "act of terror" comment, which made him look pretty dense.

I still think Romney should attack that. I don't think most Americans know the truth about that and about how terrible it was handled start to finish. Romney royally screwed up a major opportunity, but he should keep at it.

Honestly, I think it's a mistake. After killing bin Laden, I think any conversation that questions Obama's policy on terrorists puts the ball squarely in his court to bring up his victory in finally killing that bastard. Romney can try to talk about Libya and the mistakes made there but I don't see it gaining any traction with the downside of opening the door for Obama to talk about his "big win".

TheLeviathan
10-18-2012, 09:55 AM
onestly, I think it's a mistake. After killing bin Laden, I think any conversation that questions Obama's policy on terrorists puts the ball squarely in his court to bring up his victory in finally killing that bastard. Romney can try to talk about Libya and the mistakes made there but I don't see it gaining any traction with the downside of opening the door for Obama to talk about his "big win".

I think that's precisely the problem. I don't attack him on being soft on terrorism (good lord the guy has been more hawkish than recent Republican presidents), but I attack him on two things - how inappropriate it was to make sweeping claims about some stupid video and imply that it was a bunch of Islamic hotheads and to take that same argument to a prominent foreign policy environment (the UN) and soapbox about it. While Obama has been very tough on terrorism, he has been very forward about speaking out of both sides of his mouth and making flimsy excuses in place of genuine leadership.

Jim Crikket
10-18-2012, 03:45 PM
As someone who's been involved in politics for over 30 years, including presidential politics during Iowa's caucus season, I can't begin to even describe how much I can't stand both of these men... or perhaps more accurately, can't stand how they're conducting themselves in this campaign. Thinking about how I may have to actually vote for one of them almost sickens me.

And here's the bigger problem: the eventual winner pretty much surrounds himself once in office by the same people who he had running his campaign. So, instead of getting governing advice from intelligent professionals with some kind of conscience, they get advice from the same bunch of lying political hacks who gave them advice about which lies to tell to whom in order to get elected.

The first presidential election I could vote in was Carter v Ford and I've voted in every one since. But it's getting harder to keep that string alive.

As to the Libya thing, the final debate is supposed to be about foreign policy. On the one hand, I'll find that very interesting and I look forward to it. On the other hand, polls tell us most voters don't give a crap about foreign policy, so it's unlikely the final debate will change many minds.

drjim
10-18-2012, 04:45 PM
As someone who's been involved in politics for over 30 years, including presidential politics during Iowa's caucus season, I can't begin to even describe how much I can't stand both of these men... or perhaps more accurately, can't stand how they're conducting themselves in this campaign.

I would love for you to expand on this thought. What do you not like about how they are conducting themselves and what would you like to see them do differently? Especially in the context of your experience in the Iowa Caucuses.

TheLeviathan
10-18-2012, 06:58 PM
I would love for you to expand on this thought. What do you not like about how they are conducting themselves and what would you like to see them do differently? Especially in the context of your experience in the Iowa Caucuses.

Seconded. I feel the same way about this choice, would love to hear more Crikket.

Shane Wahl
10-19-2012, 01:57 AM
That these sham debates actually influence opinion is a stain on democracy. These uncommitted voters have to be marginally insane.

TheLeviathan
10-19-2012, 07:12 AM
That these sham debates actually influence opinion is a stain on democracy. These uncommitted voters have to be marginally insane.

What, in all your evident wisdom thus far, would you suggest they do make decisions upon?

Brock Beauchamp
10-19-2012, 09:03 AM
That these sham debates actually influence opinion is a stain on democracy. These uncommitted voters have to be marginally insane.

What, in all your evident wisdom thus far, would you suggest they do make decisions upon?

What the candidates have actually done instead of what they say they've done. In the case of both candidates (particularly Romney), their actions tell a very different story than what they say.

I'm not trying to pick on Romney (well, maybe I am) but he's a poster child for speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He's for contraceptive choice then he's against it then he's for it again in the debate. He's for an assault weapons ban then he's against it now he's waffling on it again in the debate. He's trying to sit on both sides of many issues and that instills zero faith about his leadership skills. I don't dislike Mitt, I think he's probably a good guy but with a Republican-controlled Congress railroading him, I worry that he would sign some pretty ridiculous legislation that would set us back socially 30 or 40 years. In a vacuum, I think he's a pretty moderate guy but in a reality where the Tea Party is running roughshod over Congress (a trend we need to stop immediately), I worry that he'll do some pretty stupid things if elected to office. He hasn't shown the kind of backbone needed to stand up to the increasingly radical (and influential) elements of the GOP.

Of course, Obama is guilty of speaking out of both sides of his mouth as well, he just doesn't do it as blatantly or as often as Romney (can anyone remember a candidate as duplicitous as Romney? I can't.).

SweetOne69
10-19-2012, 09:35 AM
What the candidates have actually done instead of what they say they've done.

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, whereas Obama has virtually never been involved in business his entire life. Also, Romney has been able to show that he can work across the aisle as a Republican Governor in the Heavy Democrat leaning state of Massachusetts. I'll will admit that Romney was not my preferred choice for the Republican nomination (more like my 4th or 5th), but he has my support over Obama.

Brock Beauchamp
10-19-2012, 10:13 AM
What the candidates have actually done instead of what they say they've done.

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, whereas Obama has virtually never been involved in business his entire life. Also, Romney has been able to show that he can work across the aisle as a Republican Governor in the Heavy Democrat leaning state of Massachusetts. I'll will admit that Romney was not my preferred choice for the Republican nomination (more like my 4th or 5th), but he has my support over Obama.

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult. The Tea Party has been a blight on the entirety of American politics and their refusal to budge on anything has been the cause of this gridlock, not Obama. They've shot down some pretty reasonable bills just because they were supported by Obama & Co. That's not how this game is supposed to work.

Obama and the Democrats are not without blame but the vast majority of the blame for recent gridlock has to be placed on the more radical elements of the GOP, which infuriatingly seem to grow more radical and powerful by the day. I don't understand what the hell is going on with this country anymore. We continue to elect bat****-crazy people to office (Pelosi and Reid need inclusion here as well) and then become disgusted when nothing is accomplished. It's absurd.

flpmagikat
10-19-2012, 05:28 PM
What the candidates have actually done instead of what they say they've done.

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, whereas Obama has virtually never been involved in business his entire life. Also, Romney has been able to show that he can work across the aisle as a Republican Governor in the Heavy Democrat leaning state of Massachusetts. I'll will admit that Romney was not my preferred choice for the Republican nomination (more like my 4th or 5th), but he has my support over Obama.

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult. The Tea Party has been a blight on the entirety of American politics and their refusal to budge on anything has been the cause of this gridlock, not Obama. They've shot down some pretty reasonable bills just because they were supported by Obama & Co. That's not how this game is supposed to work.

Obama and the Democrats are not without blame but the vast majority of the blame for recent gridlock has to be placed on the more radical elements of the GOP, which infuriatingly seem to grow more radical and powerful by the day. I don't understand what the hell is going on with this country anymore. We continue to elect bat****-crazy people to office (Pelosi and Reid need inclusion here as well) and then become disgusted when nothing is accomplished. It's absurd.

This is something that always bothers me. People in all forms of media always spout the CW that people are put off or disgusted by the gridlock in Washington. While I know there are folks that feel that way, a majority of people are voting all of these people into office! Now granted it's a flawed system where people aren't necessarily represented by someone of their liking, or someone sane, but nonetheless it's who at the very least our neighbors are electing every other year. It's like the joke that Americans aren't malicious, stubborn, greedy *******s, those are just the people they elect to run their government.

TheLeviathan
10-19-2012, 05:43 PM
I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult. The Tea Party has been a blight on the entirety of American politics and their refusal to budge on anything has been the cause of this gridlock, not Obama. They've shot down some pretty reasonable bills just because they were supported by Obama & Co. That's not how this game is supposed to work.

But see you're demonstrating my point Brock. You say that the better way to judge a candidate is by actions, not words. Except that many things politicians do they do simply to garner votes. I believe there are Republicans that don't mind gay marriage, but stump on it to get votes. There are Dems that believe we need rollbacks of union powers and social welfare, but don't dare vote against it because of voting reprecussions.

To me, there isn't one sure fool-proof way to judge a candidate. To bad-mouth using debates, or advertisements, or voting records, or anything else is missing the bigger picture. To me, you need to take it all in and use reason and common sense to assess who they really are. I learned a lot about that in 2008 - I got swept up in a few features of Obama I really liked and totally missed the boat on a number of things that may have given me pause if I reflected deeper on them. (His inexperience, his personal point of view, his far too sweeping promises, etc.)

I don't believe Romney is nearly as duplicitous as you say, certainly more than your average politician. But to me, the actual Romney is a better person than the Romney we see campaigning. Which is an odd twist on the usual way it goes.

johnnydakota
10-19-2012, 10:12 PM
I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult. The Tea Party has been a blight on the entirety of American politics and their refusal to budge on anything has been the cause of this gridlock, not Obama. They've shot down some pretty reasonable bills just because they were supported by Obama & Co. That's not how this game is supposed to work.

But see you're demonstrating my point Brock. You say that the better way to judge a candidate is by actions, not words. Except that many things politicians do they do simply to garner votes. I believe there are Republicans that don't mind gay marriage, but stump on it to get votes. There are Dems that believe we need rollbacks of union powers and social welfare, but don't dare vote against it because of voting reprecussions.

To me, there isn't one sure fool-proof way to judge a candidate. To bad-mouth using debates, or advertisements, or voting records, or anything else is missing the bigger picture. To me, you need to take it all in and use reason and common sense to assess who they really are. I learned a lot about that in 2008 - I got swept up in a few features of Obama I really liked and totally missed the boat on a number of things that may have given me pause if I reflected deeper on them. (His inexperience, his personal point of view, his far too sweeping promises, etc.)

I don't believe Romney is nearly as duplicitous as you say, certainly more than your average politician. But to me, the actual Romney is a better person than the Romney we see campaigning. Which is an odd twist on the usual way it goes.
so with a high unemployment rate, you think a man whos biggest contribution to society is exporting jobs over seas and making the 1%ers more rich?

Ultima Ratio
10-19-2012, 10:41 PM
I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult.

Let me gently correct one glaring error: control of one chamber (the house) does not equal control of congress. In other news, the Democrats did in fact control congress the first two years of the Obama presidency, with a super majority for several months.

I'm sure you don't remember how Obama dismissed and demeaned Republicans during those two years either. He didn't want their participation or support -- because he didn't need it....... THEN. And it is pretty rich to cry out in indignation over bipartisanship after the landslide 2010 elections.

TheLeviathan
10-19-2012, 11:22 PM
so with a high unemployment rate, you think a man whos biggest contribution to society is exporting jobs over seas and making the 1%ers more rich?

Care to ask a question that isn't a stupid talking point?

PseudoSABR
10-20-2012, 12:24 AM
I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult.

Let me gently correct one glaring error: control of one chamber (the house) does not equal control of congress. In other news, the Democrats did in fact control congress the first two years of the Obama presidency, with a super majority for several months.
They actually got a lot done. Not that you liked any of it. But the notion t hat Obama somehow didn't capitalize on control congress is a misrepresentation.

However, that doesn't mean that Dems are more likely to work across the aisle in any way other than to save their political asses.

Frozented9
10-20-2012, 12:27 AM
so with a high unemployment rate, you think a man whos biggest contribution to society is exporting jobs over seas and making the 1%ers more rich?

Care to ask a question that isn't a stupid talking point?

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/08/attacking-bain-for-wrong-reason/ (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/08/attacking-bain-for-wrong-reason/)

Sure do you think Romney was actually good at his job?

TheLeviathan
10-20-2012, 08:49 AM
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/08/attacking-bain-for-wrong-reason/

Sure do you think Romney was actually good at his job?

That's some interesting information. It looks like his career there was pretty muddled, thanks for posting it!

TheLeviathan
10-20-2012, 08:51 AM
They actually got a lot done. Not that you liked any of it. But the notion t hat Obama somehow didn't capitalize on control congress is a misrepresentation.

However, that doesn't mean that Dems are more likely to work across the aisle in any way other than to save their political asses.

Yeah, it's funny to watch both sides constantly betray their own talking points. The Pubs claim Obama did all these horrible things but then claim he did nothing because he wouldn't reach across. The Dems complain the Pubs never let them do anything, but then laud all the accomplishments. It's utter nonsense.

old nurse
10-21-2012, 01:37 PM
[QUOTE=Brock Beauchamp;58929]

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, .
You obviously never knew anyone who paid for the success of Romney'd business practices, nor looked at how he made the majority of his money. The success he had at the Olympics were from the bailout by the Federal government, something Atlanta or LA needed.

Shane Wahl
10-24-2012, 01:20 AM
[QUOTE=Brock Beauchamp;58929]

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, .
You obviously never knew anyone who paid for the success of Romney'd business practices, nor looked at how he made the majority of his money. The success he had at the Olympics were from the bailout by the Federal government, something Atlanta or LA needed.

I think the broken quote think casts a misrepresentation on Brock here. I was shocked initially when I saw it and thought no way. Then it was clear that Brock didn't say that.

As for the point, clearly "success" is a weird term. What about moral success? Should we really define "success" simply in terms of how much money someone has made!? HA!

You are clearly right, old nurse, about Romney, though. I am alarmed at how people could ever actually decide to vote for this guy. I mean, the utter contempt he has for middle class and lower class people is astounding.

Shane Wahl
10-24-2012, 01:22 AM
What the candidates have actually done instead of what they say they've done.

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, whereas Obama has virtually never been involved in business his entire life. Also, Romney has been able to show that he can work across the aisle as a Republican Governor in the Heavy Democrat leaning state of Massachusetts. I'll will admit that Romney was not my preferred choice for the Republican nomination (more like my 4th or 5th), but he has my support over Obama.

A successful Plutocrat who squashes the poor in favor of the one percenters. Agreed. If that his your definition of success, have at it, man.

biggentleben
10-24-2012, 10:15 AM
The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

glunn
10-24-2012, 08:28 PM
The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

TheLeviathan
10-24-2012, 09:23 PM
You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

"Never"? That seems like a rather ridiculous statement considering it wasn't the government that devised the method, just sank money into expanding it.

The problem is that we are giving ridiculous bailouts to banks and corporations, but the true yearly budget crushers are social security, medicaid, etc. Unfortunately, both sides are winning just enough battles to screw us from both sides.

Brock Beauchamp
10-25-2012, 07:02 AM
I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult.

Let me gently correct one glaring error: control of one chamber (the house) does not equal control of congress. In other news, the Democrats did in fact control congress the first two years of the Obama presidency, with a super majority for several months.

I'm sure you don't remember how Obama dismissed and demeaned Republicans during those two years either. He didn't want their participation or support -- because he didn't need it....... THEN. And it is pretty rich to cry out in indignation over bipartisanship after the landslide 2010 elections.

Actually, I do remember how Obama treated the Republicans, which I why I said some of the blame is laid at his feet. But Obama and the Democrats did not show the outright vitriol that the Republicans have shown in the past two years. To deny that is to deny reality. The Democrats didn't like the Republicans but after the Republicans took the House, they showed outright hatred for the Democrats, Obama in particular. I thought the vitriol aimed at Bush was a new low for this country but the GOP has managed to one-up that with Obama in office. It's disgusting to anyone who doesn't buy into either party's bull****.

As for not controlling Congress, meh. The House is where most bills start and that's the branch that matters in this type of discussion.

biggentleben
10-25-2012, 08:18 AM
The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

I actually wasn't talking about any corporate handouts. Both Romney and Ryan's families received welfare assistance when they were boys. Without that assistance, who knows if they're in this spot today. Yet they want to remove that assistance for others to reach their "lofty" seats at the table.

Brock Beauchamp
10-25-2012, 08:56 AM
The best part is for their disdain for what they deem as "handouts", both Romney's and Ryan's families received government assistance to be able to make their foothold in this country, yet they now demonize those who want to do the same exact thing.

You make an excellent point. It seems to me that the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. are Wall Street (hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts) and the big corporations ((hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks). And without government funding, private enterprise never would have been able to develop computers or the internet.

I actually wasn't talking about any corporate handouts. Both Romney and Ryan's families received welfare assistance when they were boys. Without that assistance, who knows if they're in this spot today. Yet they want to remove that assistance for others to reach their "lofty" seats at the table.

I used to be more down on the Welfare system until I met my now-fiancee. She grew up on Welfare. Her mother had issues and couldn't hold down a job.

Now my fiancee is a lawyer at a mid-sized law firm in Minneapolis. I think it's safe to say that Welfare money was well-spent. Now, those situations are certainly not the case all the time (or even the majority of the time) but without that assistance, my fiancee would have had zero chance of ever becoming the successful lawyer she is today, paying considerable taxes into the system.

I'm against "Welfare Queens". I mean, who isn't? But we shouldn't be concerned about them. They're a blight on the system but the real concern is their children. Those kids deserve a legitimate shot at success, just like the one my fiancee ultimately received as she went through the system.

And there is simply no good way to lock out the "Welfare Queens" without doing considerable damage to their children as well. I'm all for Welfare-to-Work programs and other associated programs that try to get people out of the system but calling for drastic cuts to funding without consideration for the damage it could do to everyone in it is foolish and short-sighted.

ChiTownTwinsFan
10-25-2012, 11:54 AM
I used to be more down on the Welfare system until I met my now-fiancee. She grew up on Welfare. Her mother had issues and couldn't hold down a job.

Now my fiancee is a lawyer at a mid-sized law firm in Minneapolis. I think it's safe to say that Welfare money was well-spent. Now, those situations are certainly not the case all the time (or even the majority of the time) but without that assistance, my fiancee would have had zero chance of ever becoming the successful lawyer she is today, paying considerable taxes into the system.

I'm against "Welfare Queens". I mean, who isn't? But we shouldn't be concerned about them. They're a blight on the system but the real concern is their children. Those kids deserve a legitimate shot at success, just like the one my fiancee ultimately received as she went through the system.

And there is simply no good way to lock out the "Welfare Queens" without doing considerable damage to their children as well. I'm all for Welfare-to-Work programs and other associated programs that try to get people out of the system but calling for drastic cuts to funding without consideration for the damage it could do to everyone in it is foolish and short-sighted.

There are more success stories out there than you may think. It's just that the 'Welfare Queens' stories are the ones that are repeated over and over and over again until that's all people think of welfare. Do you remember former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe? She had 3 small children when her then husband up and abandoned them all. She went on welfare, put herself through school, became a teacher, etc. People DO use welfare as it's intended and do succeed. And, as Brock said, drastic cutting without thinking does a lot of damage, especially to the children involved.

TheLeviathan
10-25-2012, 05:01 PM
Drastic cutting without thinking is a mistake. Blind defense with an unwillingness to cut is an even bigger mistake.

biggentleben
10-25-2012, 06:10 PM
Drastic cutting without thinking is a mistake. Blind defense with an unwillingness to cut is an even bigger mistake.

I agree. That's why I cannot stand the extremism of both sides. Either all in or all out.

Willihammer
10-28-2012, 09:07 PM
I will not vote till someone pledges a program to carpet bomb the country with condoms and morning after pills and Mifepristone.

glunn
11-01-2012, 10:40 PM
Drastic cutting without thinking is a mistake. Blind defense with an unwillingness to cut is an even bigger mistake.

I agree. That's why I cannot stand the extremism of both sides. Either all in or all out.

I agree with both of you. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned everyone to beware of the military-industrial complex.

Brock Beauchamp
11-02-2012, 09:27 AM
I agree with both of you. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned everyone to beware of the military-industrial complex.

This country could use an Ike right now.

Too bad that neither party is interested in nominating a moderate who blurs party lines.

PseudoSABR
11-02-2012, 12:44 PM
I agree with both of you. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned everyone to beware of the military-industrial complex.

This country could use an Ike right now.

Too bad that neither party is interested in nominating a moderate who blurs party lines.
I think that's unfair. I think both Clinton and Obama are pretty moderate Dems. Afterall the healthcare plan was a conservative idea. With the obstinance of Congressional Republicans a more moderate Democrat in the Whitehouse would hardly matter.

TheLeviathan
11-02-2012, 03:15 PM
[I think that's unfair. I think both Clinton and Obama are pretty moderate Dems. Afterall the healthcare plan was a conservative idea. With the obstinance of Congressional Republicans a more moderate Democrat in the Whitehouse would hardly matter.

Obama isn't moderate. That's not coming from a conservative, that's coming from a libertarian independent. He's far more liberal than Clinton. Clinton was probably the last sensible, moderate President we've had. There's a reason why Obama is parading him around to do the heavy lifting.

I appreciate Obama being tough on the terrorism angle in terms of military action, but the guy still talks like a liberal. He tries really hard to hide it, but it's there. This country is in genuine need of someone who won't just talk it come the main election cycle, we need someone who's no-nonsense and common sense to the core. Once again we don't get that choice.

ChiTownTwinsFan
11-02-2012, 06:42 PM
He tries really hard to hide it, but it's there.

That's kind of what I think about you claiming to be a libertarian independent when I really think you are a republican. Maybe it's just that you feel it necessary to play devil's advocate to Pseudo's democrat but I've really heard nothing from you that doesn't reek of republican. It's all a matter of perspective and I don't think Obama is as liberal as you claim.

PseudoSABR
11-02-2012, 06:52 PM
[I think that's unfair. I think both Clinton and Obama are pretty moderate Dems. Afterall the healthcare plan was a conservative idea. With the obstinance of Congressional Republicans a more moderate Democrat in the Whitehouse would hardly matter.

Obama isn't moderate. That's not coming from a conservative, that's coming from a libertarian independent. He's far more liberal than Clinton. Clinton was probably the last sensible, moderate President we've had. There's a reason why Obama is parading him around to do the heavy lifting.

I appreciate Obama being tough on the terrorism angle in terms of military action, but the guy still talks like a liberal. He tries really hard to hide it, but it's there. This country is in genuine need of someone who won't just talk it come the main election cycle, we need someone who's no-nonsense and common sense to the core. Once again we don't get that choice.Let's see some policy that backs up Obama as a liberal. Student loan reform? Repealing DADT? I'm a liberal and largely, I've been disappointed with his progressivism.

PseudoSABR
11-02-2012, 06:54 PM
He tries really hard to hide it, but it's there.

That's kind of what I think about you claiming to be a libertarian independent when I really think you are a republican. Maybe it's just that you feel it necessary to play devil's advocate to Pseudo's democrat but I've really heard nothing from you that doesn't reek of republican. It's all a matter of perspective and I don't think Obama is as liberal as you claim.I wouldn't ever call Levi a Republican, but he's certainly far right in some of his underlying assumptions about politics and people. To his credit, he's not a sucker at all for the Republican schmucks.

TheLeviathan
11-02-2012, 09:22 PM
That's kind of what I think about you claiming to be a libertarian independent when I really think you are a republican. Maybe it's just that you feel it necessary to play devil's advocate to Pseudo's democrat but I've really heard nothing from you that doesn't reek of republican. It's all a matter of perspective and I don't think Obama is as liberal as you claim.

You mean like when I've reamed Hornhead for privitizing education, gay marriage, drug legalization, abortion law, etc? You and I have very different ideas of what a Republican is apparently.

TheLeviathan
11-02-2012, 09:27 PM
Let's see some policy that backs up Obama as a liberal. Student loan reform? Repealing DADT? I'm a liberal and largely, I've been disappointed with his progressivism.

How about everything associated with the bailouts? Not that Republicans wouldn't have done it to, but it was more the methods behind it.

I'm hardly "far right" about people. Unless you consider not being a pollyanna "far right". I'm just realistic about people, if we spent more time doing that we might really make some progress. Compassion doesn't have to end because you acknowledge the limitations of humanity and refuse to indulge them. You just change your orientation. That underlying assumption (compassion = indulging) is a major reason why we have so many problems with education and social welfare. And that foundational belief has flooded left-wing thinking to the point of making it so obnoxious and counter-productive that I rail against it every opportunity I have.

PseudoSABR
11-02-2012, 11:38 PM
Let's see some policy that backs up Obama as a liberal. Student loan reform? Repealing DADT? I'm a liberal and largely, I've been disappointed with his progressivism.

How about everything associated with the bailouts? Not that Republicans wouldn't have done it to, but it was more the methods behind it.

I'm hardly "far right" about people. Unless you consider not being a pollyanna "far right". I'm just realistic about people, if we spent more time doing that we might really make some progress. Compassion doesn't have to end because you acknowledge the limitations of humanity and refuse to indulge them. You just change your orientation. That underlying assumption (compassion = indulging) is a major reason why we have so many problems with education and social welfare. And that foundational belief has flooded left-wing thinking to the point of making it so obnoxious and counter-productive that I rail against it every opportunity I have.Everyone thinks they are being realistic. It's why they believe what they believe. I could give a **** about compassion in and of itself; it's about giving people the means to provide for themselves. I think government has a role and a responsibility in providing those means; my sense is your less sure if such means are worth the effort. It's fine and perfectly reasonable that you have some cynicism about the spirit of humanity; but that paints you pretty far right. Downplaying our responsibility to our fellow mankind is precisely the underlying assumptions I'm talking about. I don't want to get into it with you, but you start with a pretty conservative notion of why people fail, about why people are poor.

TheLeviathan
11-03-2012, 09:07 AM
Everyone thinks they are being realistic. It's why they believe what they believe. I could give a **** about compassion in and of itself; it's about giving people the means to provide for themselves. I think government has a role and a responsibility in providing those means; my sense is your less sure if such means are worth the effort. It's fine and perfectly reasonable that you have some cynicism about the spirit of humanity; but that paints you pretty far right. Downplaying our responsibility to our fellow mankind is precisely the underlying assumptions I'm talking about. I don't want to get into it with you, but you start with a pretty conservative notion of why people fail, about why people are poor.

It's not "conservative", it's simply realistic. Not everyone is intelligent. Or hard working. Or talented. Unless you want to start manipulating genetic code it's never going to be the case. (Certainly not with today's breeding rate for the college educated vs. the poor. Idiocracy baby) I have no problem giving people opportunity when they are hard on their luck and providing help that can do that. I won't, however, cross the line into doing it for them. No matter how much you socially program you, as the old saying goes, "can't fix stupid" Not everyone fails for that reason, hence why we need programs that give those that are unlucky or from unfortunate circumstances all the tools we have. The issue is that the system lefties push is oriented to "fix stupid" rather than "help those that need". That's my issue. You want the best case of this in the country? Look at student loans and our education system.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 10:54 AM
Your post is totally beiled not by realism, but by conservatism. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone except for you. The notion that some people are just too stupid to help is scary right wing; as if, stupidity isn't also an unlucky or unfortunate circumstance. As a liberal, I'm not interested in babying anyone, but I don't want them to become hobos either. But please, I don't want to debate these issues. But your viewpoint isn't objective it comes from the vantage of real conservative cynicism. I think that your willingness to paint Obama as a hidden liberal is also evidence of your deep rooted conservative values, which is just fine; not sure why it's hard for you to acknowledge.

Also claiming realism and objectivism seems totally clownish and below you, honestly.

TheLeviathan
11-03-2012, 01:45 PM
Your post is totally beiled not by realism, but by conservatism. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone except for you. The notion that some people are just too stupid to help is scary right wing; as if, stupidity isn't also an unlucky or unfortunate circumstance. As a liberal, I'm not interested in babying anyone, but I don't want them to become hobos either. But please, I don't want to debate these issues. But your viewpoint isn't objective it comes from the vantage of real conservative cynicism. I think that your willingness to paint Obama as a hidden liberal is also evidence of your deep rooted conservative values, which is just fine; not sure why it's hard for you to acknowledge.

Also claiming realism and objectivism seems totally clownish and below you, honestly.

I'm not claiming to be objective, I'm claiming to be realistic. At the core of liberalism is this incessant need to paint everyone who says the truth as a cynic. Some people are just not very intelligent. There is nothing controversial about that. No amount of "help" makes them more intelligent. We can help them to be more skilled, but they're still not intelligent. Just more skilled - which is precisely the manner in which we should approach it.

And while it's cute that you are pulling the classic attack of making me a monster to say that, it isn't true that I want to cast these people into the gutter. I'm just not willing to orient everything in life to the misguided idea that everyone is the same and capable of the same. They aren't. It's that childish delusion that is something out of a Care Bear cartoon that really makes me despise liberalism. You can't fix stupid by hoping they figure it out while we provide everything they need - they won't. To a liberal that probably sounds like awful, evil conservatism. It's just realistic, nothing more. You let me know when everyone has the same talents, intelligence, and work ethic and I'll gladly endorse your ideas though.

As for Obama - there is nothing hidden about his liberalism. While I would certainly call certain aspects of his belief system moderate (military use comes to mind), I would not call his beliefs about the role of government anything but significantly left of center. Clinton was a moderate. My beliefs about government are right of center, that doesn't make my evaluation off. You are just further left of Obama, it doesn't make him moderate. That's the misperception here.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 02:31 PM
No one's calling you a monster, and no ones endorsing care-bareism. That you paint anyone, me, Obama, liberals, that way is symptomatic of what I'm talking about. We all agree with pragmatism but your notion of realism is based on your experiential and ideological opinion. It's just your version of what's realistic. Obviously, I disagree. I think my view of how to structure society is completely realistic and not at all hippie-stupid pollyanneish.

I fully acknowledge that Obama is left of center, but not liberal, and I agree I'm totally further left than Obama. There's no misperception there.

TheLeviathan
11-03-2012, 03:07 PM
No one's calling you a monster, and no ones endorsing care-bareism. That you paint anyone, me, Obama, liberals, that way is symptomatic of what I'm talking about. We all agree with pragmatism but your notion of realism is based on your experiential and ideological opinion. It's just your version of what's realistic. Obviously, I disagree. I think my view of how to structure society is completely realistic and not at all hippie-stupid pollyanneish.

Then you haven't done a very good job analyzing your stance either. Your consistent need to paint every idea against the current lefty driven social welfare system as vile, evil, and uncaring is care-bearish. Taking a step off that ledge would be a good start.


I fully acknowledge that Obama is left of center, but not liberal, and I agree I'm totally further left than Obama. There's no misperception there.

Then the issue is what level of left-of-center you consider "liberal" - I consider moderate Bill Clinton. Obama is significantly left of him, hence my claim.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 03:49 PM
Then you haven't done a very good job analyzing your stance either. Your consistent need to paint every idea against the current lefty driven social welfare system as vile, evil, and uncaring is care-bearish. Taking a step off that ledge would be a good start.Listen to yourself. I'm not doing those things.

For the record I think the welfare and education system are crap; but I believe we can do both in ethical, cost-effective, and efficacious matter. That doesn't make me crazy, extreme, or hot-headed.

TheLeviathan
11-03-2012, 05:49 PM
For the record I think the welfare and education system are crap; but I believe we can do both in ethical, cost-effective, and efficacious matter. That doesn't make me crazy, extreme, or hot-headed.

If that's true then I hope the next time the issue comes up you avoid painting any position in opposition to the current system as vile. You have done that in the past Pseudo and, as I've said then, it's the same problem we see nationally. It's hard to have reasonable ideas on the table when even wheeling out the table makes you an uncaring, conservative prick.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 06:14 PM
For the record I think the welfare and education system are crap; but I believe we can do both in ethical, cost-effective, and efficacious matter. That doesn't make me crazy, extreme, or hot-headed.

If that's true then I hope the next time the issue comes up you avoid painting any position in opposition to the current system as vile. You have done that in the past Pseudo and, as I've said then, it's the same problem we see nationally. It's hard to have reasonable ideas on the table when even wheeling out the table makes you an uncaring, conservative prick.
Look, certain positions seem unnecessarily uncaring to me. That's my opinion not of you overall or of conservatism in general, but there's certainly something that bubbles up from conservative posters that seem needless and even vulgar on issues of social welfare. I don't think I'm alone in this assessment.

TheLeviathan
11-03-2012, 06:39 PM
Look, certain positions seem unnecessarily uncaring to me. That's my opinion not of you overall or of conservatism in general, but there's certainly something that bubbles up from conservative posters that seem needless and even vulgar on issues of social welfare. I don't think I'm alone in this assessment.

I would argue you are looking for it to be uncaring rather than looking at it practically. Sometimes it's appropriate to call it uncaring, but not every attempt to reduce government is an effort to crap on the little guy. As I've said before, sometimes the left-wing agenda is far more insulting in the guise of being "caring". We should get past that as a country and as individuals and talk realistically about these issues.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 06:59 PM
Look, certain positions seem unnecessarily uncaring to me. That's my opinion not of you overall or of conservatism in general, but there's certainly something that bubbles up from conservative posters that seem needless and even vulgar on issues of social welfare. I don't think I'm alone in this assessment.

I would argue you are looking for it to be uncaring rather than looking at it practically. Sometimes it's appropriate to call it uncaring, but not every attempt to reduce government is an effort to crap on the little guy. As I've said before, sometimes the left-wing agenda is far more insulting in the guise of being "caring". We should get past that as a country and as individuals and talk realistically about these issues.Oh, you wanted to talk realistically? Well, then.

drjim
11-03-2012, 07:28 PM
If I may chime in Lev is right about Obama. He is a liberal and he is left of Clinton. He is probably not as liberal as many progressives would want, but he is surely pretty liberal.

I generally like him because he has liberal aims with a conservative temperament. I do think he could be much more creative on tax policy and lay off on some of the more onerous business regulations, not to mention actually pursue a sane drug policy, but that the price to pay when considering the alternative.

TheLeviathan
11-03-2012, 07:35 PM
If I may chime in Lev is right about Obama. He is a liberal and he is left of Clinton. He is probably not as liberal as many progressives would want, but he is surely pretty liberal.

I generally like him because he has liberal aims with a conservative temperament. I do think he could be much more creative on tax policy and lay off on some of the more onerous business regulations, not to mention actually pursue a sane drug policy, but that the price to pay when considering the alternative.

Well said.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 09:20 PM
If I may chime in Lev is right about Obama. He is a liberal and he is left of Clinton. He is probably not as liberal as many progressives would want, but he is surely pretty liberal.

I generally like him because he has liberal aims with a conservative temperament. I do think he could be much more creative on tax policy and lay off on some of the more onerous business regulations, not to mention actually pursue a sane drug policy, but that the price to pay when considering the alternative.Honestly, this is pretty abstract. You're generalizing. When I pressed Levi for specifics, he offered the bailouts. Whatever we might want to believe about Obama's liberalism personally or rhetorically, it really doesn't manifest itself in his policy.

An old friend said of Clinton: "He's the best Republican president we've ever had." We live in a center-right country, and I guess I forget that sometimes.

I'm fine with disagreeing on these issues.

biggentleben
11-03-2012, 09:40 PM
I really don't believe Clinton was a moderate at all. Not in his personal beliefs, anyway. He was, however, one of the last people in Washington - in the White House or the Capitol Building - willing to negotiate his own personal beliefs in order to make progress he felt was for the good of all. His willingness to reach across the aisle in his first couple of years when his own party was setting up an us-against-them mentality was why the "Contract With America" Republicans were so willing to work with him. A great example is the Tom Daschle of Clinton's era vs. the Tom Daschle that was forced to exist in Bush's presidency. Daschle is a moderate Democrat at his core beliefs, but he was forced to be the "anti" voice in public because his party had chosen to return to partisan politics after the Bush/Gore debacle of an election.

Do welfare and entitlement programs need an overhaul? Absolutely! The issue is that no one comes to the middle and says "what is working and what isn't". The right comes in saying, "Scrap the whole thing!" The left comes in saying, "There are too many people who would be hurt if we completely lost this help!" Neither side is willing to come in and make sacrifices. Heck, we're in the midst of a recession. I've not had a raise since I started this job 4 years ago. In that time, Congress has increased their pay nearly 150% once you include in travel costs and room and board. That's out of touch with America, both sides of the aisle.

I look at South Dakota as a great example. Kristi Noem may be the dumbest congressperson ever sent to Washington, and her entire platform is anti-Obama and anti-Pelosi, but it rallies a state right now that's sick of the crap going on in DC. Problem is, she's contributing as much as she's helping, and she can't really be attacked on her incredible absentee record and lack of education because she left school to be a mom and she's used her kids as an excuse to leave DC instead of attend committee meetings she should be a part of. No one wants to attack a mom for spending time with her kids, but this is exactly why we have the issue we do. Someone who obviously isn't willing to put in the time to do the job required is kept in office and getting pay raises while her constituents pay for higher priced items with stagnant and even lower wages (SD has an incredibly low unemployment rate, so it's hard to argue the "out of work" angle). This kind of crap representation is rampant in DC right now, and it's why nothing will happen with either presidential candidate to really change our current issues in this country.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 09:53 PM
Do welfare and entitlement programs need an overhaul? Absolutely! The issue is that no one comes to the middle and says "what is working and what isn't". The right comes in saying, "Scrap the whole thing!" The left comes in saying, "There are too many people who would be hurt if we completely lost this help!" Neither side is willing to come in and make sacrifices. Heck, we're in the midst of a recession. I've not had a raise since I started this job 4 years ago. In that time, Congress has increased their pay nearly 150% once you include in travel costs and room and board. That's out of touch with America, both sides of the aisle.I think this is fair. But I think to even begin to do social welfare in sustainable way will cost a lot more money in the short term. We need good ideas, not arbitrary sacrifices from both sides. The system needs to be overhauled, not renegotiated.

drjim
11-03-2012, 09:55 PM
If I may chime in Lev is right about Obama. He is a liberal and he is left of Clinton. He is probably not as liberal as many progressives would want, but he is surely pretty liberal.

I generally like him because he has liberal aims with a conservative temperament. I do think he could be much more creative on tax policy and lay off on some of the more onerous business regulations, not to mention actually pursue a sane drug policy, but that the price to pay when considering the alternative.Honestly, this is pretty abstract. You're generalizing. When I pressed Levi for specifics, he offered the bailouts. Whatever we might want to believe about Obama's liberalism personally or rhetorically, it really doesn't manifest itself in his policy.

An old friend said of Clinton: "He's the best Republican president we've ever had." In general I think you're both placing the "center" in firmly center-right mentality.

I'm fine with disagreeing on these issues.

OK, I don't want to hammer every specific issue, but Obama to the left when it comes to business regulation. Obviously some regulation is desirable, but I would say he has gone beyond that and placed more power in the government to regulate business based on environmental concerns and hiring practices (to name a couple).

He is also left of center when it comes to his tax plan. He wants to keep tax rates for those earning under 250k as is while raising for those making more while not offering much in reform.

He is on the left in Social Security as his plan is pretty much to maintain the status quo. He wants additional government involvement in health care.

He is on the left on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, access to contraceptives, funding for stem cell research and others. I agree with him here for the most part, even if he is hesitant to do more reasonable actions when it comes to drugs.

He is left of center in using government money to invest in alternative energy companies.

I could go on. He is not some socialist but he is a pretty run of the mill liberal technocrat. Because of this I will generally side with him on social issues and be less impressed with his economic policies. I struggle some with his foreign policy, but the alternative would be much worse.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 10:48 PM
I could go on. He is not some socialist but he is a pretty run of the mill liberal technocrat. Because of this I will generally side with him on social issues and be less impressed with his economic policies. I struggle some with his foreign policy, but the alternative would be much worse.Left of center looks identical to left of right, which is part of the problem.

Are even conservatives really against tax hikes for those making more than 250k? Government money is invested in oil and coal, why not wind? (**** ethanol.) In any case, the prominence of far right ideology has pulled the center to the right. That gay marriage, funding wind, and taxing the super wealthy are even up for debate demonstrates the center-right core of American politics.

People confuse balance with objectivity; there's a lot of rhetoric from the right that's totally illegitimate--that the legitimate argument gets colored as left is super problematic.

TheLeviathan
11-03-2012, 10:57 PM
Are even conservatives really against tax hikes for those making more than 250k? Government money is invested in oil and coal, why not wind? (**** ethanol.) In any case, the prominence of far right ideology has pulled the center to the right. That gay marriage, funding wind, and taxing the super wealthy are even up for debate demonstrates the center-right core of American politics.

People confuse balance with objectivity; there's a lot of rhetoric from the right that's totally illegitimate--that the legitimate argument gets colored as left is super problematic.

So you want specifics, get them, and then whine some more? Cmon man, this is pathetic. As drjim rightly pointed out, it's not just the tax hikes, attack the wealthy rhetoric - it's the combination of that with weak proposals to balance it with spending cuts.

You believe what you are isn't as far left as it is and it skews your opinion and then you're preaching to all of us about how blind we are about where things stand. It's smug, annoying, and (sadly) predictable. It's yet another demonstration of why I just can't stand liberalism no matter how many points I might agree with it on. At least many a-hole conservatives can blame an all-powerful god for making them idiots, most liberals have only their own smug, head-up-their-butt naivety to blame. Excellent demo for us though, yeesh.

johnnydakota
11-03-2012, 11:13 PM
Are even conservatives really against tax hikes for those making more than 250k? Government money is invested in oil and coal, why not wind? (**** ethanol.) In any case, the prominence of far right ideology has pulled the center to the right. That gay marriage, funding wind, and taxing the super wealthy are even up for debate demonstrates the center-right core of American politics.

People confuse balance with objectivity; there's a lot of rhetoric from the right that's totally illegitimate--that the legitimate argument gets colored as left is super problematic.

So you want specifics, get them, and then whine some more? Cmon man, this is pathetic. As drjim rightly pointed out, it's not just the tax hikes, attack the wealthy rhetoric - it's the combination of that with weak proposals to balance it with spending cuts.

You believe what you are isn't as far left as it is and it skews your opinion and then you're preaching to all of us about how blind we are about where things stand. It's smug, annoying, and (sadly) predictable. It's yet another demonstration of why I just can't stand liberalism no matter how many points I might agree with it on. At least many a-hole conservatives can blame an all-powerful god for making them idiots, most liberals have only their own smug, head-up-their-butt naivety to blame. Excellent demo for us though, yeesh.
just adopt the same law as france if you earn 1 million a year your taxed 75% and if your company earns over 10 million your taxed at 25%
time for the 1%ers to pay there share they have been avoiding ...its time for the working class to reclaim our legacy

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 11:18 PM
Are even conservatives really against tax hikes for those making more than 250k? Government money is invested in oil and coal, why not wind? (**** ethanol.) In any case, the prominence of far right ideology has pulled the center to the right. That gay marriage, funding wind, and taxing the super wealthy are even up for debate demonstrates the center-right core of American politics.

People confuse balance with objectivity; there's a lot of rhetoric from the right that's totally illegitimate--that the legitimate argument gets colored as left is super problematic.

So you want specifics, get them, and then whine some more? Cmon man, this is pathetic. As drjim rightly pointed out, it's not just the tax hikes, attack the wealthy rhetoric - it's the combination of that with weak proposals to balance it with spending cuts.

You believe what you are isn't as far left as it is and it skews your opinion and then you're preaching to all of us about how blind we are about where things stand. It's smug, annoying, and (sadly) predictable. It's yet another demonstration of why I just can't stand liberalism no matter how many points I might agree with it on. At least many a-hole conservatives can blame an all-powerful god for making them idiots, most liberals have only their own smug, head-up-their-butt naivety to blame. Excellent demo for us though, yeesh.Look, you might recall, that this debate started with me defending that you weren't Republican. I'm a liberal. I think Obama is pretty moderate. Disagree, it's fine; don't be a weirdo about it.

For my part, I'm not seeing a convincing argument that Obama isn't a moderate Democrat, if left-of-center classifies as liberal so be it.

Honestly, Levi, you move the goal posts and than declare victory. You froth at the opportunity to call me (or anyone) a naive liberal. It's crap-logic that labels ethical integrity as naivete. Maybe your hyperbolic defensive nature is fooling some people, but--dear god--it can't be fooling everybody. It's in moments like these that an unreasonable resentment of liberalism shines through. Maybe it doesn't come from some right wing ethic, but it certainly is hellish.

PseudoSABR
11-03-2012, 11:19 PM
its time for the working class to reclaim our legacySadly, we don't have a legacy.

johnnydakota
11-03-2012, 11:36 PM
welfare entitlements? how about stopping corp. welfare first?
mitt romney deducted 77,000 dollars for the care of his wifes horse...
thats more then most familys earn, haliburtons 3 times billion dollar grants,
for every dollar spent on poor welfare 2 dollars are spent on corp. welfare
as for social security , thats easy to fix, put congress , the senate and the presidents pensions into it and sit back and watch how fast they repay what they have stolen from it....

the 1%ers keep this country argueing left and right ,while they rob us blind,time for the working class to stop the theft of our country....there more of us then there is of them.....

PseudoSABR
11-04-2012, 12:08 AM
welfare entitlements? how about stopping corp. welfare first?
mitt romney deducted 77,000 dollars for the care of his wifes horse...
thats more then most familys earn, haliburtons 3 times billion dollar grants,
for every dollar spent on poor welfare 2 dollars are spent on corp. welfare
as for social security , thats easy to fix, put congress , the senate and the presidents pensions into it and sit back and watch how fast they repay what they have stolen from it....

the 1%ers keep this country argueing left and right ,while they rob us blind,time for the working class to stop the theft of our country....there more of us then there is of them.....I agree with the sentiment, not with the argument. If you want to change the country you live in, you can't pitch your sails on weak arguments, however true the spirit of them may be.

TheLeviathan
11-04-2012, 08:20 AM
For my part, I'm not seeing a convincing argument that Obama isn't a moderate Democrat, if left-of-center classifies as liberal so be it.

The point is - you don't get to demand reasons, dismiss them, and say "Nope, wrong answer, you're right of center". If you want to make that charge, be prepared to defend it. You don't get to not like the answer and then declare everyone else has the wrong perspective without at least attempting to defend your position. You absolutely had that coming after twice demanding that the opposing viewpoint wasn't detailed enough and then, when it was, you start throwing smug grenades and labels around. The reason I didn't get more detailed in the beginning is because I know anything other than abstractions with you is a waste of time. You fall back on "well you're a conservative, so that's why you're wrong" line of argument.

You and other liberals don't want resentment? Stop doing exactly that!!!! I've met a handful of liberals I could actually say "alright, here's the problem, what do we do" without it turning into a smug ****fest about stupid conservatives rather than anything pragmatic. It easily builds resentment.

Brock Beauchamp
11-04-2012, 09:33 AM
I believe Obama is a "moderate" because he cannot be anything else right now. He can barely get anything done with a GOP house as a moderate... Anything more than that and he'd accomplish absolutely nothing (and there is plenty of strife within the Democratic ranks, which will not follow an extreme left Obama).

As I've mentioned before, I believe the GOP is responsible for most of the partisanship within Congress... But Democrats are guilty of it as well. Obama may look moderate right now but I believe that's because it is forced upon him, not because he's actually a centrist.

TheLeviathan
11-04-2012, 01:12 PM
As I've mentioned before, I believe the GOP is responsible for most of the partisanship within Congress... But Democrats are guilty of it as well. Obama may look moderate right now but I believe that's because it is forced upon him, not because he's actually a centrist.

I think through business regulations and other things that came out of the bailouts you see his true colors. The system is supposed to work to moderate candidates this way, but what shouldn't happen is constant gridlock which I would agree is largely at the feet of the Republicans. Obama isn't this socialist monster he's made out to be, but he's left of center and significantly left of Clinton.

PseudoSABR
11-04-2012, 01:24 PM
For my part, I'm not seeing a convincing argument that Obama isn't a moderate Democrat, if left-of-center classifies as liberal so be it.

The point is - you don't get to demand reasons, dismiss them, and say "Nope, wrong answer, you're right of center". If you want to make that charge, be prepared to defend it. You don't get to not like the answer and then declare everyone else has the wrong perspective without at least attempting to defend your position. You absolutely had that coming after twice demanding that the opposing viewpoint wasn't detailed enough and then, when it was, you start throwing smug grenades and labels around. The reason I didn't get more detailed in the beginning is because I know anything other than abstractions with you is a waste of time. You fall back on "well you're a conservative, so that's why you're wrong" line of argument.

You and other liberals don't want resentment? Stop doing exactly that!!!! I've met a handful of liberals I could actually say "alright, here's the problem, what do we do" without it turning into a smug ****fest about stupid conservatives rather than anything pragmatic. It easily builds resentment.Look I'm not dismissing an argument because it comes from a center-right person. I'm dismissing an argument because I find it unconvincing. I don't see where I'm being smug, this justified resentment of yours is totally invented.

PseudoSABR
11-07-2012, 03:12 PM
Cheer Up, Republicans (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/obama_the_moderate_republican_what_the_2012_electi on_should_teach_the_gop.html)You’re going to have a moderate Republican president for the next four years: Barack Obama. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/obama_the_moderate_republican_what_the_2012_electi on_should_teach_the_gop.html)