or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore - Page 9

post #321 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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.

 

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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #322 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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!

post #323 of 455

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

post #324 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

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.

post #325 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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. 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #326 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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 View Post

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?


Edited by trumptman - 11/17/12 at 11:36am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #327 of 455

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

 

 

Quote:

Republicans: GOP needs to get with the times

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.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #328 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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? 1wink.gif
post #329 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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? 1wink.gif

 

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

post #330 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

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!

 

I see you came to have a reasonable discussion free of childish name calling.  1hmm.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

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

 

Perhaps you'd explain what you think I mean by "radical past."   

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

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.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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.

 

 

I don't disagree with most of that, though it was clearly turnout.  It's simply that the GOP needs to look at why turnout was what it was.  I do agree they didn't do enough to engage minorities, particularly blacks in the inner cities.  I've always favored not focusing on the social issues.  And yes, they need to a better job with messaging.  It's not that their message is totally wrong in content, or that many conservative positions been rejected.  It's how they communicated that message, and the specific candidates that ran (Murdock, Akin, et al).   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #331 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

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.

post #332 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

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.

post #333 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

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.

post #334 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

post #335 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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/

post #336 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #337 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

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.

 

1smile.gif

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #338 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

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

 

1smile.gif

 

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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #339 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

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.

post #340 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

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%.

post #341 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post


Yes I think you are correct. This way I can sometimes watch pbs
or a basketball game, isn't vpn wonderful? 1wink.gif

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?

post #342 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #343 of 455

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....

post #344 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by groakes View Post

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...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #345 of 455

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

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #346 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

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?


Edited by tribalogical - 11/19/12 at 8:25am
post #347 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

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…………….. 

post #348 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

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...

 

post #349 of 455

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

post #350 of 455

Please go Galt.  You won't be missed.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #351 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

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.  


Edited by Slurpy - 11/19/12 at 3:48pm
post #352 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioMike View Post

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?

post #353 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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!  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #354 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

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. 

 

Go ahead.  Tell me which one of my points have been "discredited."   By the way, I never said I wasn't exposed the conservative media outlets at all.  

 

 


 

Right. Your original post is a textbook definition of living in a bubble.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  

 

 

 

 It's clear you have no interest in any real, serious debate, nor at looking at the other side of the issue. 

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  

 

 

All your posts in this thread make this undeniable.

 

Undeniable?  Wow, that's pretty strong.  

 

 

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.

 

I love that when a liberal realized someone disagrees with him, he claims that person is hateful and even ignorant.  By the way, what is an "agenda of hate and ignorance?"  An agenda?  Yes, you've got me there.  My goal is to spread hate and ignorance across the globe.  

 

 

 

 It's the only reasonable explanation for things like the benghazi fury, when these same people (like yourself)  

 

Actually, I think there are a lot of reasons to be upset about Bengahzi.  Four dead Americans.  Lack of security.  Stories about the nature of the attack which are not credible.  The list goes on.  

 

 

 

 

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

 

I see.  So more people died when Bush was President in 9/11, embassy attacks, and two wars...so we should be much more angry.  Tell me, how many dead Americans does it take so that we're allowed to be upset about it?

 

 And what do you mean that Obama had "nothing to do" with Benghazi?  Of course he did.  He's the President.  That doesn't mean he's exclusively to blame for the deaths.  But you must face facts:  His administration was incompetent in handling the entire affair, from the the three months leading up to the attack, to past two months.  They pulled out security forces despite previous attacks.  They denied more security.  They didn't act to save lives during the attack.  They pushed the phony "video" and "spontaneous act" narrative, when we know they didn't believe it was true.   We don't know how much the President was directly involved, but we do know that the proverbial buck stops with him.  Oh, he was involved alright.  

 

 

 

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. 

 

There is a perfectly sensible explanation:  I don't blame Bush for 9/11, nor do I agree that "his" wars were misguided.  Incidentally, while the President has to take responsibility on Benghazi, I don't necessarily "blame" him for what happened.  What I do blame is his response, and his generally incompetent and weak overall foreign policy.  I do blame him for the White House deliberately pushing a false narrative about the attack a few weeks prior the election.  

 

 

 


 

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.

 

Do you really believe you were called a traitor for merely opposing the war?  Who called you a traitor, specifically?  The only borderline treasonous acts and statements I saw were well after we had troops in harm's way.  If you were out there screaming bloody murder when we had troops on the ground, you should have been called a lot of things.  If you were out there saying "I hope we lose" as singer Natalie Maines did, yeah, that's borderline treasonous when one roots against her own country.  If you were screaming that Bush was a stupid, lying warmonger as our troops were fighting, that's a problem too.  But again..I'd be interested in who called you a traitor for merely opposing the decision to go war.  

 

By the way, I agree McCain should have gone to the briefing.  But wouldn't run around calling John McCain a partisan hack if you want to be taken seriously.  He and Graham are both moderates, and McCain is literally a war hero.  

 


 

I'm a conservative, it might surprise you to know. I voted for Bush the 1st time. 

 

 

 

That is surprising given your tirade above.  

 

 

 

Quote:
 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/)

 

First, I don't appreciate it when you imply I am not honest or objective simply because we disagree on what the Republican party stands for.  I don't happen to agree it stands for xenophobia, racism, anti-intellectualism, anti-science and Islamophobia.  I do think the Democratic party and its media allies love to portray the GOP this way.  I will also grant you that there is a certain element of the party I'd like to see go away, particularly the hardcore Christian conservatives who drag the party far to the right on social issues.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
while having done everything in their power the last 4 years to undermine the President at the cost of the country.

 

I don't agree with your view on that, nor do I think it cost the country. I think our system worked exactly as it was supposed to, in that the opposition prevented Obama from getting everything he wanted   I realize the narrative now is that the GOP was merely obstructionist and tried to set up Obama to fail.  In reality though (or at least, in my view) they simply couldn't go along with Obama's agenda.  Obama favors greater size of government, increased regulation, higher traditional energy prices, a weaker military, less American influence around the globe, direct government investment in private corporations, higher taxes and a single payer healthcare system (Obamacare is the stepping stone to one).  The GOP doesn't agree with any of this, nor do I.  Obama dug in on the pork-laden "stimulus" bill and the healthcare bill.  The result?  Almost zero Republican support.  You seem to be just as angry and petulant as Obama about Republicans actually daring to disagree with him.   

 

 

 

Quote:
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. 

 

I do think for myself, thank you.  I get news and information from a variety of sources, and frequently check sources on the polar opposite of the political spectrum to get other perspectives on a particular issue or event.  Now, it is true that I also consume conservative media, though I honestly look at it more as entertainment, and realize that it is coming from a certain point of view.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that.  Points of view are fine so long as we label them and take them into consideration.  

 

As for the "right wing" of the party, I again agree that I'd like to see a change, especially on the social issues.  However, I don't know what "despicable" things you are referring to.  Some people oppose gay marriage, abortion, etc, but that does not make them despicable or radical.  It's simply a question of whether or not we want them to have a prominent place in the party.  I'd much rather the GOP not focus on these issues.  


Edited by SDW2001 - 11/19/12 at 4:52pm
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #355 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

post #356 of 455

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

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #357 of 455
Republicans are reality deniers and thats why they lost badly. They will continue to lose if they continue to deny facts (science, etc...). Then Republicans parade around claiming black are lazy when much of the wealth created in this country was created off the backs of slaves....and they latinos are taking all their jobs and government benefits. The very statement like I want my country back reeks of racial undertones. The days of white people getting preferential simply for being white are coming to an end.
post #358 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.
post #359 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.

post #360 of 455

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.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore