I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore - Page 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

There will be plenty of time for analysis about the "why" of last night's election.  Clearly, I was wrong...as were several pundits I have come to respect for their expertise.  Say what you will, Karl Rove and Dick Morris know their jobs and have always delivered accurate results. But I'm sure we will discuss the reason for the outcome later.  

 

What I don't understand is the "how."  How is that we reelected a President who has failed in almost all measures of his job? How is that we reelected a former community organizer with a radical past?  How is it that people voted against an experienced governor and business leader with a sterling personal background, and voted for the guy that ran a small, angry and divisive campaign?  How is it that for the first time since FDR, we re-elected a President with more than 7.3% unemployment?  How is it that the American people ignored Benghazi?  How did we reelect the President when the top concern of voter was the economy and only 4 in 10 said we were on the right track with it?  How were the final national polls off by at least 5%?  How was the anecdotal evidence so wrong?  

 

I honestly don't recognize the country that voted for this man.  I don't recognize a country that voted for pessimism instead of optimism.  I don't recognize a country that voted for More Free Crap™, trillion dollar deficits, and higher taxes.  I don't recognize a country that voted for a man who went overseas and apologized for America...a man who was caught on an open mic essentially telling Vladimir Putin he'd give away the store on missile defense after his last election.  I don't recognize a country that reelected a man who promised skyrocketing energy prices and bankrupt coal companies...and delivered on his promise.  In the America I grew up in, this election wouldn't even have been close.  We had better judgement.  We demanded more of our leaders than "it could have been worse."  We didn't hate business, the rich and oil companies.  We didn't essentially take over auto companies and give them to the unions.  We wouldn't tolerate a President who called his opponent a "bullshitter" and whose campaign all but called his opponent a murderer.  

 

I don't know where this leaves us.  I do know that unlike Michelle Obama, this is the first time I'm not proud of my country.  

Mitt Romney, you dare defend that hollow windbag! Not that Obama is any prize but at least the guy is really who he is, warts and all. Mitt Romney is a fakir, poseur, who believes wearing magic underwear and screwing the poor to get hiss ass licked by rich cronies is the way into the Pearly Gates! If there was a hell the devil would reject Mitt Romeny for being such a flaming bore. You really believed Dick Morris and Karl Rove. Oh, boo hoo, grow up!

When I read someone say they think Obama has had a "radical" past I thank God I live in Sweden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar 

When I read someone say they think Obama has had a "radical" past I thank God I live in Sweden.

Radical appears to have a quite different meaning over here, especially to the far right. Roughly translates as "not one of us", as far as I can tell.

Your location says US, by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

That's the great thing about this country. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

In theory. Hold the "wrong" opinion, say the "wrong" thing, or publish the "wrong" information - and you may lose your job. Or your health. Or your liberty. Or your life.

I kid you not. And no, I am not paranoid, as certain kings of the ad hominem (you know who you are), are so quick to label. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by midwinter 

I believe, SDW2001, that you are experiencing cognitive dissonance—along with apparently the entirety of Utah.  I haven't read through the umpteen pages of this thread, nor will I, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that the conservative media complex (talk radio + FOX news + conservative internet, etc), which started out as a pushback against what was very likely a real media bias way back when, has been so effective that a) it has become the mainstream and b) conservatives have spent a long time only watching/listening/reading conservative media and largely only talking to other conservatives.  It's not surprising, then, that the sentiment conservatives are expressing is that they don't recognize their country.  They don't.  Because they haven't been seeing their country. I'm not saying all conservatives.  I'm just saying that the news and commentary you listen to partly determines how you "see" the America around you (especially when the conservative media complex is mostly designed to create angry white men), and if the news and commentary you've been listening to/reading hasn't been interested in or based in the "reality-based community," what you see when you look around won't necessarily be accurate.

 

I say this in all kindness, SDW2001, but if you want to recognize the America that's all around you, stop listening to the pundits—especially the partisan ones.  They usually don't know what they're talking about.  I can't imagine any job (other than on Wall Street or in the econ department at U Illinois-Chicago) where you can be so wrong so often and still have a job.  Turn off your talk radio.  Turn off FOX news before 10:00 and after 5:00.

 

It's going to be interesting to see what the GOP and the conservatives learn from this.  Perhaps they will moderate back to the center, where we badly need them to be.  Perhaps they'll just bank on creaming the Democrats in the 2014 midterms (which they will do). I tend to think whatever change they make will take a generation, at least, since they've spent 40 years building and strengthening the coalition they have now—which is currently boxed into the same map as the old confederacy—and Obama has won two elections now without needing the South.

 

Anyway.

 

I'm not back. I'm not staying. I probably won't respond to any replies. I didn't come to gloat. I just wanted to poke my head in and see what y'all were talking about and to dip my toe in the water again.

There is seriously a massive level of media bias. Several studies have shown that it doesn't move polls outside of the margin of error (It can add 1-2%)but it can sway a close election or create a very expensive headwind that needs to be overcome. It's very clear Obama doesn't have to worry about anything negative that may have hurt is campaign. It was hushed up much like the John Edwards affair was ignored when he was campaigning.

The GOP should honestly just stay out of the way. The Fiscal crisis is a tax crisis. The issue being dealt with there is an array of tax band-aids all expiring. Helping Democrats there doesn't help Republicans so why help slit their own throat. The AMT is going to hit too many people? Perhaps we should discuss why it exists and how it was the original "tax the rich" tax and how the spending problems never went away after it was passed. Bush tax cuts expiring? Put almost everyone back on the tax rolls and then perhaps they will appreciate tax cut talk instead of give me goodies talk.

You don't want to engage. You don't want to reply. You don't want to read what others have written and claim you aren't really gloating. Yet you are gloating because you think Obama winning = certain people are right and others are wrong. You'd never have believed this if the reverse were true. Obama won Virginia and Florida so clearly Democrats must be incredible racists. If lack of a majority with a group is proof of -ism, them Democrats clearly hate white men, anyone with a job, anyone who earns over $50k, anyone with a college education, anyone who is married, etc.

Obama lost over 7 million votes from the last election. Republicans garnered roughly the same number of votes. It wasn't delusional to think more people would vote their pocketbook instead of their interest group and switch over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Good to see you.  You're making the "bubble" argument, which we've already discussed.  There is probably some validity to it, at least for people who only are exposed to conservative media.  I'm not one of those people, though.  

Isn't it strange that all the people making that argument live in places like Utah and the people they are making it too live in places like California or Pennsylvania?

Here's a message all Republicans need to hear and heed.

http://news.msn.com/politics/republicans-gop-needs-to-get-with-the-times

A good read as some of them actually get why they lost the last election and it wasn't just voter turn out or chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Radical appears to have a quite different meaning over here, especially to the far right. Roughly translates as "not one of us", as far as I can tell.

Your location says US, by the way.

Yes I think you are correct. This way I can sometimes watch pbs
or a basketball game, isn't vpn wonderful?

Totally. What I meant, though, not that it matters at all, is that you have listed your profile location as "US".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

It is important to me to know whether people believe the government is a granter of rights or a protector of rights. Knowing that is helpful to me in conversing with them on the subject of government.

I'm firmly in the 'government is a protector of rights' camp. The rights themselves are, in my view, inalienable to begin with. We give power to the government to use our pooled resources to protect the free exercise of these rights.

Pretty simple, really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion 

 

Representative government is quite obviously both of those things at the same time. The Constitution didn't write itself, and there's no reason to write it if it's not going to be enforced.

I have to disagree here. The founding fathers weren't "granting" rights when they wrote the Constitution, they were identifying those rights which they believed we were born into, were inviolate and inalienable. Simply listing those doesn't equate to "granting" them. It's fairly clear they were crafting the Constitution to ensure the protection of those rights, not with the intent of granting of them in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

If the founding fathers were alive today they'd be in prison (or wouldn't be alive after all) because they'd be considered "terrorists" with their "extremist" anti-government views.

And at the very least, would find themselves the nonstop topic at Fox 'news' as the worst examples of "liberal bias" ever foisted on the American Experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Associating with former domestic terrorists, communists and racist radicals?  Yeah, I think that qualifies.  And yes, all of that is 100% confirmed.  Let me know if you'd like the details.  

Sure, go ahead and provide details.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Obama lost over 7 million votes from the last election. Republicans garnered roughly the same number of votes. It wasn't delusional to think more people would vote their pocketbook instead of their interest group and switch over.

The number of people that turned out in 2012 was also about 8 million fewer than the 2008 election.

Fewer people voted for Romney than voted for McCain, but the number voting Republican held fairly steady, at about 59 million.  Obama had just over 6 million fewer votes cast for him this election, so one can definitely say most of the 8 million fewer voters were "Obama voters". The 2008 election had a fairly extraordinary turnout at nearly 60% of the electorate. This time around, not quite so extraordinary. But Obama still held a 3% popular vote margin, and that can't be construed as 'failure'… Since the number of Republican votes cast remained nearly unchanged, it doesn't seem that anyone was switching sides…  unless you count the 1.2 million votes cast for Gary Johnson. Apparently, mostly ex-Obama voters there?

Here's my source for the election numbers:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Radical appears to have a quite different meaning over here, especially to the far right. Roughly translates as "not one of us", as far as I can tell.

Spot on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribalogical 

 

The number of people that turned out in 2012 was also about 8 million fewer than the 2008 election.

 

 

Fewer people voted for Romney than voted for McCain, but the number voting Republican held fairly steady, at about 59 million.  Obama had just over 6 million fewer votes cast for him this election, so one can definitely say most of the 8 million fewer voters were "Obama voters". The 2008 election had a fairly extraordinary turnout at nearly 60% of the electorate. This time around, not quite so extraordinary. But Obama still held a 3% popular vote margin, and that can't be construed as 'failure'… Since the number of Republican votes cast remained nearly unchanged, it doesn't seem that anyone was switching sides…  unless you count the 1.2 million votes cast for Gary Johnson. Apparently, mostly ex-Obama voters there?

 

Here's my source for the election numbers:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Careful.  Math and data don't always work with the Right... especially this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

 

Careful.  Math and data don't always work with the Right... especially this year.

 

Care to explain the math behind borrowing a trillion dollars a year and having the worse recovery in modern history?

Perhaps you'd care to explain it from the perspective of Japan which has been doing the same up to over 200% GDP and still is falling into recession, has dissolved their Parliament and will be holding elections for a new PM as they have been doing almost yearly.

I find it rather sad that you declare it ignorant that Republicans believed people would vote for an improvement rather than vote for a continuation of a terrible result and yet when you look at Europe and Japan where many of these same policies are in place, you still find horrible to non-existent growth and plenty of suffering. Don't worry, you can still be smug when recession returns to the U.S. and you'll probably blame Bush again 6-7 years and several trillion dollars later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribalogical 

 

I have to disagree here. The founding fathers weren't "granting" rights when they wrote the Constitution, they were identifying those rights which they believed we were born into, were inviolate and inalienable. Simply listing those doesn't equate to "granting" them. It's fairly clear they were crafting the Constitution to ensure the protection of those rights, not with the intent of granting of them in the first place.

What about all of the contradictions that existed in terms of those "inalienable" rights at the time (like slavery, voting rights, and women's rights)? All of the amendments to the Constitution going forward from that time? Those kinds of things don't really fit into the idea of the Constitution not functionally granting the rights to the citizens of the United States. There are far too many historical disagreements about the scope of the rights you're supposedly born into to really take that idea literally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

Care to explain the math behind borrowing a trillion dollars a year and having the worse recovery in modern history?

 

Perhaps you'd care to explain it from the perspective of Japan which has been doing the same up to over 200% GDP and still is falling into recession, has dissolved their Parliament and will be holding elections for a new PM as they have been doing almost yearly.

 

I find it rather sad that you declare it ignorant that Republicans believed people would vote for an improvement rather than vote for a continuation of a terrible result and yet when you look at Europe and Japan where many of these same policies are in place, you still find horrible to non-existent growth and plenty of suffering. Don't worry, you can still be smug when recession returns to the U.S. and you'll probably blame Bush again 6-7 years and several trillion dollars later.

The reason the U.S. government has to borrow a trillion per year is because of all of the financial commitments it's already made in the past. Those don't disappear just because someone new took office. The last Bush administration budget ended up with a trillion dollar deficit, so that's the deficit level that Obama has had to deal with himself. Also, why would you consider the past four years to be a "terrible result"? The last time the U.S. economy contracted was in the middle of 2009, and the average annual job growth during Obama's first term has been almost double what it was during George W. Bush's first term: +0.97% vs. +0.51%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar 


Yes I think you are correct. This way I can sometimes watch pbs
or a basketball game, isn't vpn wonderful?

Kind of ironic, isn't that?  Faking your way to utilize the "free" resources of a country which are paid for by their tax dollars?

Quote:

Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

Care to explain the math behind borrowing a trillion dollars a year and having the worse recovery in modern history?

 

Perhaps you'd care to explain it from the perspective of Japan which has been doing the same up to over 200% GDP and still is falling into recession, has dissolved their Parliament and will be holding elections for a new PM as they have been doing almost yearly.

 

I find it rather sad that you declare it ignorant that Republicans believed people would vote for an improvement rather than vote for a continuation of a terrible result and yet when you look at Europe and Japan where many of these same policies are in place, you still find horrible to non-existent growth and plenty of suffering. Don't worry, you can still be smug when recession returns to the U.S. and you'll probably blame Bush again 6-7 years and several trillion dollars later.

 

The reason the U.S. government has to borrow a trillion per year is because of all of the financial commitments it's already made in the past. Those don't disappear just because someone new took office. The last Bush administration budget ended up with a trillion dollar deficit, so that's the deficit level that Obama has had to deal with himself. Also, why would you consider the past four years to be a "terrible result"? The last time the U.S. economy contracted was in the middle of 2009, and the average annual job growth during Obama's first term has been almost double what it was during George W. Bush's first term: +0.97% vs. +0.51%.

Democrats controlled the House and Senate and would not send the bills to Bush to sign for FY2009. Obama and Democrats are responsible for that massive spending growth and the deficit from it. For FY2009, the last fiscal year Bush was in office, he only signed 3 out of the 12 bills that year. The government was run on a continuing resolution and the spending went through when they got a president who would sign it.

Get a new talking point. The job growth is only that if you ignore all the losses that happened before that growth happened.

Spending Trillions of dollars on fighting wars in foreign countries to prop up the vested interests of oil companies hasn't exactly helped helped the US debt position either....

Quote:

Originally Posted by groakes 

Spending Trillions of dollars on fighting wars in foreign countries to prop up the vested interests of oil companies hasn't exactly helped helped the US debt position either....

But me thunks dat we waz spreddin' democracy...

We are entitled!

Give us more entitlements!

Yep.  The super rich, like Romney.

This guy puts it nicely:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-gerard/party-of-entitled-rich-th_b_2154693.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

Care to explain the math behind borrowing a trillion dollars a year and having the worse recovery in modern history?

 

Perhaps you'd care to explain it from the perspective of Japan which has been doing the same up to over 200% GDP and still is falling into recession, has dissolved their Parliament and will be holding elections for a new PM as they have been doing almost yearly.

 

I find it rather sad that you declare it ignorant that Republicans believed people would vote for an improvement rather than vote for a continuation of a terrible result and yet when you look at Europe and Japan where many of these same policies are in place, you still find horrible to non-existent growth and plenty of suffering. Don't worry, you can still be smug when recession returns to the U.S. and you'll probably blame Bush again 6-7 years and several trillion dollars later.

You're kind of all over the map here, but I'll try to step in and clarify some things for you. I doubt I'll get to all of your points though...

First and foremost: Obama was in fact handed a $1.3 trillion spending deficit by the outgoing Bush administration (Bush's final budget for 2009 tripled the deficit in one go… a nice parting gift!). So, please lay the blame for initiating that "borrowing spree" where it squarely belongs.

If you understand the economics behind governmental budgeting and revenue collection you'll know that deficits, once initiated, are never easy to reverse. But there are additional factors that count in this situation, and must be accounted for. 

What we experienced beginning in 2007/8 wasn't a simple Recession. It was a systemic failure. A severe economic downturn not just a Recession. Obama has presided over the hardest recovery in recent history because he was handed the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Most economists agree that not only was this systemic, but is likely to take closer to ten years to fully recover from (meaning, return to economic parity). Most economists also agree that this President has done an above average job of managing the crisis.

In fairness, Obama wasn't just handed a trillion dollar deficit. That was handed to him alongside an economy in free fall, shedding 850k jobs a month, housing and financial markets on the verge of total collapse, and due to tax cuts and recession, revenue had fallen to under 14% of GDP, while Bush's budget grew spending to over 20% of GDP… GDP meanwhile was at a MINUS 9% growth rate in Bush's last quarter...

Unemployment was at 7.5% when Obama took office, and rocketing upward. It slid to just over 10% about 9 months later. It stopped it and reversed from there, in part thanks to the stimulus and other emergency actions by the President and Congress. It has sine returned almost to the same level as when Obama took office, but with one CLEAR difference. Instead of being around 7.5% and LOSING 850k jobs a month, we're at 7.8% and GAINING 250k a month. Failure? Really?

It's important to see where we've been, compared to where we are and the direction we're headed. If you're going to declare this President a failure, you have to base it on something tangible. Look over these links, and then get back to me.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120229_EssentialEcon.PDF

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120502_EconomicGrowth.pdf

Is he a failure in your mind because he didn't accomplish MORE, FASTER? Because from what I can see, we are recovering (e.g. the stock market doubled in value over Obama's first term)… and although slowly due mostly to the depth of the crisis, it is encouraging and promising recovery. I'm seeing the result of SUCCESSFUL policy, not failed policy.

We also can't ignore that there is only so much anyone can do. We're riding a wild bronco, a global economy in crisis, trying to stabilize an recover it… Republicans want to go the "austerity" route, which is proving disastrous in those other economies you mentioned (Japan and the Eurozone), and proved equally disastrous during our own Depression in the 30's. Keynesian methods do work, proven during our last great depression. Some want to make those claims 'debatable" but I can see clearly enough to know they aren't. Can you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion 

 

What about all of the contradictions that existed in terms of those "inalienable" rights at the time (like slavery, voting rights, and women's rights)? All of the amendments to the Constitution going forward from that time? Those kinds of things don't really fit into the idea of the Constitution not functionally granting the rights to the citizens of the United States. There are far too many historical disagreements about the scope of the rights you're supposedly born into to really take that idea literally.

Forget about the issue of 'voting rights' until you have first dealt with considering women and slaves as human and equal.

The Constitution was written in a time when certain members of society considered people of color to be less than human, more akin to pack animals than people. It was also a time when women in society were considered to be more the property of their fathers first, and then their husband's. Women's rights and slavery were birthing topics for debate… not much in the mainstream yet when the Constitution was written. 

It was the revolution itself that I believe helped put them on the map as topics and issues. Pretty soon after that, came the questions… Who gets to enjoy the rights and freedoms spelled out in our Constitution? Does it include ALL citizens, ALL people within our borders?

The debate ran long and heated, and in my view continues in different forms today (when we're arguing reproductive rights and 'entitlements' today, those aren't really very different arguments from those we were having 200 years ago)….

The beauty and genius of the Constitution (in part due to the brilliance of Thomas Jefferson himself), is its ability to keep its context, to allow for adjustment without losing core relevance, to enable us to define with greater clarity who we are as a nation… thus the ability to freely amend in times of real need, but not with relative ease (the process is a challenging one).

So, we adjusted the definition of which people were covered and protected. After much debate, conceded that ALL men (and women) were created equal and therefore, these inalienable rights to which we refer are also theirs, and warrant equal protection under our laws…………….. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

 

Democrats controlled the House and Senate and would not send the bills to Bush to sign for FY2009. Obama and Democrats are responsible for that massive spending growth and the deficit from it. For FY2009, the last fiscal year Bush was in office, he only signed 3 out of the 12 bills that year. The government was run on a continuing resolution and the spending went through when they got a president who would sign it.

 

Get a new talking point. The job growth is only that if you ignore all the losses that happened before that growth happened.

I'm curious where you're getting your information? It seems to be very heavily spun into an anti-Obama narrative...

While it's true that the final '09 budget was foisted off on and signed by Obama in March of '09, he wasn't happy about it, quote: "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government…" That's pretty much how he felt about what was handed him.

Calling Obama and the Democrats exclusively responsible for the budgetary results of that year (spending increases and deficits) shows you to be ill-informed at best.

You also said Bush only signed 3 of 12 bills passed by Congress in his last year? That would be the second session of the 110th, Congress, yes? Except…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress  

Not sure what you're getting at there…? That's a lot more than 12 bills and… "enacted" usually means a President signed off on them, no?

As far as job losses go: when Bush left we were shedding 850k jobs a month, with the entire economy heading south. National Unemployment figures bottomed out at 10.1% in October '09. We recovered to 7.8% recently… ALL net jobs taken into account, Obama has a net positive almost double that of Bush. Those numbers are readily available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov) along with tons of other interesting and FACTUAL employment statistics...

Gotta agree with the topic title. 

Here in Ohio we see a public that confuses "saving the auto industry" with an illegal auto union payoff with both stolen funds & stimulus dollars; Medicare patient age averages dropping below 55 (and alot in the thirty age group) due to "changes" in social security "disability" qualifications; precincts voting over 100% for BHO due to the "superb ground forces" in Ohio & voting machines defaulting to BHO regardless of who pulls the levers (in my area - a Congresswoman Fudge controlled world - we voted 109% for BHO -guess my vote didn't count); not going to mention the war on religion, women and minorities by the Left.

I am disheartened by all this and should be thankful that "only" 4 people died for this election (if you do not count Fast & Furious) but no - I am still pissed off with the lying. the coverup and the general stupidity of my fellow Americans.

Either people are truly stupid or they are just looking for justification for taking a handout that they know is wrong.

I know many don't agree but listening to their arguments leaves me bewildered - everything cannot be justified by "Bush did it."

There is evil in this world and evil is winning.   Yes, it is that black & white

signed,

John Gault

Please go Galt.  You won't be missed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Good to see you.  You're making the "bubble" argument, which we've already discussed.  There is probably some validity to it, at least for people who only are exposed to conservative media.  I'm not one of those people, though.  

No, of course your not. Your original post, and every single one in this thread, just coincidentally happens to contain every ringle talking point pushed by the right wing/GOP, no matter how little truth it contains. But yes, it's very believable that you actually don't parrot these things mindlessly, as is the obvious explanation, but you just so happened to come up with these exact same point all by yourself, by looking at the facts and your own rational thinking, right? And they JUST SO HAPPENED to be the same, discredited talking points and attacks pushed by people in 'conservative media' which, of course, you're not exposed to and are independant of. 

Right. Your original post is a textbook definition of living in a bubble. It's clear you have no interest in any real, serious debate, nor at looking at the other side of the issue. All your posts in this thread make this undeniable. You have an agenda of hate/ignorance, and you play fast and loose with the facts to justify this hatred by pretending you're outraged about something else. It's the only reasonable explanation for things like the benghazi fury, when these same people (like yourself)  did not share the same level of outrage (actually, not at all) at the last President, when MANY THOUSANDS of Americans died by attacks under his watch, both here at home AND in foreign countries, and dozens of embassies were hit.  Yet we're to believe these same people (like yourself) are legitimately outraged over FOUR deaths, which the President had nothing to do with, and desperately trying to spin it as a scandal and foreign policy disaster, in a desperate attempt to push the cliche, and paint a democratic President as 'weak' on defense, 'incompetent', and best of all, that he isn't THAT concerned about these death because of his disdain for Americans, or somehow helped facilitate them through malicious intent. Yet this fury was nowhere to be found when we got 3,000 deaths under Bush, and 5000+ deaths by his misguided wars. This type of hypocrisy is transparent, and nothing more than partisan bullshit. Yet, 'independent thinking' people like you buy it hook, line, and sinker, and propagate it proudly. Do you not see how ridiculous it is? I can't understand how you wouldn't. It' shameful, not laudable. 

You know what I was called by people like you, and your friends in conservative media for opposing the Iraq war because I knew that it would cause countless needless deaths? A traitor. Tell me, did you also oppose the war, or did you cheerlead it like all your conservative friends, and no doubt happily believed the WMD bullshit in order to justify it? I guess you weren't too concerned about American deaths there, eh? You know who else were called traitors? Those that wanted answers over 9/11. These same people who accused other of being traitors for actually being concerned about American lives, are those that are now calling for states to secede, and pundits/politicians who are doing everything in their power to destroy Obama for 4 deaths by cynical politicization. People like John McCain, who didn't bother to go to the intelligence briefing about Benghazi which would have given him answers, because he was too busy doing a PR stunt "demanding" answers during that time. These liars and jokers, are the people you parrot, word for word, lie for lie.

I'm a conservative, it might surprise you to know. I voted for Bush the 1st time. Because I've always had more conservative values. But unlike you, I was honest and objective enough to realize and admit that the party has gone down the shitter since then, and 'conservatism' is not enough reason to stick with a party that simply has gone completely insane, thrown all real intellect in the trash, and panders to and promotes the most vile aspects of human nature (xenophobia/bigotry/racism/ignorance/anti-intellectualism/anti-science/islamophobia/) while having done everything in their power the last 4 years to undermine the President at the cost of the country. So stop lapping up their bullshit, and start thinking for yourself. My vote for Obama was less due to my love of the man (I'm not the biggest fan), but more due to the rejection of the modern republican party/right wing and all the despicable things they currently stand for.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioMike 

Gotta agree with the topic title. 

Here in Ohio we see a public that confuses "saving the auto industry" with an illegal auto union payoff with both stolen funds & stimulus dollars; Medicare patient age averages dropping below 55 (and alot in the thirty age group) due to "changes" in social security "disability" qualifications; precincts voting over 100% for BHO due to the "superb ground forces" in Ohio & voting machines defaulting to BHO regardless of who pulls the levers (in my area - a Congresswoman Fudge controlled world - we voted 109% for BHO -guess my vote didn't count); not going to mention the war on religion, women and minorities by the Left.

I am disheartened by all this and should be thankful that "only" 4 people died for this election (if you do not count Fast & Furious) but no - I am still pissed off with the lying. the coverup and the general stupidity of my fellow Americans.

Either people are truly stupid or they are just looking for justification for taking a handout that they know is wrong.

I know many don't agree but listening to their arguments leaves me bewildered - everything cannot be justified by "Bush did it."

There is evil in this world and evil is winning.   Yes, it is that black & white

signed,

John Gault

Doesn't it puzzle you at all that all this illegality is allegedly going on, but no action is being taken, or even threatened? Silence from the Republican Party. Do you think it's possible that this is all just pure invention, like most of the nonsense that circulates the internet but mysteriously never makes it to the courts or the news or the Congressional Committees, and simply fades away in the depths of snopes.com or wherever after playing its part in winding up the gullible, unhappy fringe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Sure, go ahead and provide details.

 

1.  One of Obama's important mentors was Frank Marshall Davis, a literal card-carrying member of the communist party.  In his books, he speaks of spending time with "Frank" frequently.  Davis was sought out by Obama's grandfather specifically to provide political and general guidance.   

 

2.  Obama had a longstanding relationship with Professor Derrick Bell, who was a strong proponent of Critical Race Theory.  Bell was critical of the message of Martin Luther King and opposed the "colorblind" goals for which King and other Civil Rights leaders worked.  Bell was another mentor of Obama.  There is video footage of Obama praising Bell and his "teachings."  

 

3.  Obama had a close relationship with former Weather Underground terrorist and leftist radical Bill Ayers.  While Obama downplayed his relationship in his first campaign (making it seem as if he didn't even know him), the truth is they had a long relationship.  In fact, the beginnings of Obama's political career include Ayers, who hosted a coffee klatch-type event for the would-be State Senator.   Obama and Ayers also served as founding board members of the Woods Fund of Chicago.   

 

 

So..there you have it.  A communist mentor?  Check.  A radical racist professor?  Check.  Associating with a known (and unapologetic) domestic terrorist?  Check!  

OK - by details I thought you meant "provide some evidence", or perhaps some citations to credible sources. Or even incredible sources, but displaying provenance would probably hurt rather than help your cause. Those accusations are all readily available on the internet and have been debunked by multiple researchers. Only the extreme right-wing websites seem still to be peddling that stuff - resurrected for this election presumably. I'd have to guess you've been hanging around at Breitbart.com, which I'm starting to think is your preferred source of impartial news. There are reasonable bibliographies for each of those subjects on their Wikipedia pages, which might provide you with more diverse and accurate views of their backgrounds and relationships with Obama, should you happen to be interested in such things.

I think you hit the nail on the head with Breitbart, muppetry.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdonisSMU 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

OK - by details I thought you meant "provide some evidence", or perhaps some citations to credible sources. Or even incredible sources, but displaying provenance would probably hurt rather than help your cause. Those accusations are all readily available on the internet and have been debunked by multiple researchers. Only the extreme right-wing websites seem still to be peddling that stuff - resurrected for this election presumably. I'd have to guess you've been hanging around at Breitbart.com, which I'm starting to think is your preferred source of impartial news. There are reasonable bibliographies for each of those subjects on their Wikipedia pages, which might provide you with more diverse and accurate views of their backgrounds and relationships with Obama, should you happen to be interested in such things.

Republicans and conservatives have no use for facts.

That's a harsh generalization. I agree that recently it has appeared that way at times, but they have been desperate times. The GOP faces some stark choices that do not sit well with a large fraction of the party base. Denial, despite all the jokes, is happening.

U.S. has fallen well behind worlds top 10 fully democratic countries according to latest Economic Intelligence Units (EIU) democracy index. 

Yet many Americans still seem to think that U.S. is a model country for democracy - which it has not been for a very long time.

Most of the democratic world outside U.S. have long realized that democracy is much more than right to vote or freedoms for the citizens. Democracy is also equally about shared responsibilities - both socially and economically.

"Democratic Freedoms" as a term is only half of the truth. U.S. has great history in promoting those freedoms, but U.S. has terrible history in implementing and promoting "Democratic Responsibilities" for it's own citizens.

As a bystander living in fully democratic country, I can say that the Obama administration has been strongest supporter of modernizing American society to match the standards that rest of the developed world live by. Hopefully history will recognize that - even if half of the voting America does not.

What you call "Obamacare", we've been calling business as usual for the past 50 years. After all, we dont have "uninsured" sick people living on our streets, but instead healthy people working to support themselves - including me.