So, what do you guys think of the current Republican Debate?
Even as a Republican myself, I find the unwillingness to even bend on the issue of taxes to be kind of frightening....at the same time, Bachmann is continuing to worry me when it comes to her speaking (her little back and forth with Pawlenty was hilarious though).
Hopefully this thread can be a good discussion about the debate....
well...I wonder the ration of Democrats/Republicans on this site is
I am a democrat from a mainly republican family.
and if Palin gets elected, it is my belief that our wonderful country will go downhill so fast it will get a speeding ticket...or at least make a really big splat.
ineptus astartes wrote:well...I wonder the ration of Democrats/Republicans on this site is
I am a democrat from a mainly republican family.
and if Palin gets elected, it is my belief that our wonderful country will go downhill so fast it will get a speeding ticket...or at least make a really big splat.
As Palin has not run for anything since 2008 U'd think its kind of difficult for her to get elected President.
The chances of Texas governor Rick Perry becoming front-runner for the Republican nomination to take on Barack Obama rose on Thursday after a lacklustre showing by other candidates in the biggest debate so far.
Perry's office confirmed on Thursday he is planning to announce that he will join the race on Saturday at a conservative conference in Charleston, South Carolina.
Perry's entry came too late for him to participate in Thursday's debate in Ames, Iowa. It was an important debate, coming at the start of three hectic days of campaigning in the state where the first of the Republican caucuses is scheduled to be held in February.
Eight declared candidates took part but no clear winner emerged from what was a largely dull two hours. It was enlivened only by lively personal exchanges between Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and the former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, whose campaign is faltering.
Asked about Perry's imminent arrival in the race, the candidates were polite, with one describing him as formidable and another welcoming both him and Sarah Palin, should she choose to stand. Palin is scheduled to make a public appearance in Iowa on Friday.
Pawlenty badly needs to revive his campaign by doing well in the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, a traditional test of would-be presidential candidates. If he fails, he could see his remaining financial backers desert him.
Under pressure, his main target was predictably Bachmann, winner of the previous debate in New Hampshire and who is leading in the polls in Iowa. Adopting a patronising tone, he said Bachmann had done little in her five years in Congress. "She has done some wonderful things in her life but it is an indisputable fact that her record of accomplishment and results is nonexistent," Pawlenty said, trying to compensate for his failure to make an impact in the New Hampshire debate and shed his image of dullness.
But he picked on the wrong candidate. Bachmann came back recalling his record in office as governor on health, energy and trade. "That sounds a lot more like Barack Obama's record," she said. She also raised his record on abortion, a litmus issue for Republicans.
After a series of personal exchanges, Pawlenty called her position as "illogical".
Romney was left unscathed, which his campaign team was happy about. But Perry's arrival could provide him with real competition by the time of the next debate, in California, in September.
Pawlenty's jibes, which appeared to be prepared in advance, are unlikely to have swayed many doubters. Others who failed to make much of an impression included former senator Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.
Jon Huntsman made his debate debut. He has struggled in the polls, too close to the centre for many conservatives and also, unforgivable for many Republicans, he worked in the Obama administration as ambassador to China.
But his opening answer was poor. Asked for a detailed plan for tackling the economy, he said limply: "It is coming."
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
Pretty much. Hopefully we can get a new president in '12 before the whole thing goes down.
Also, since my state has a closed primary, I won't be voting in the Republican primary, so best of luck to whoever wins. As long as it's not Ron Paul, he (or she) will probably get my vote.
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
This has no basis in reality.
try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.
and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.
the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.
the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.
well, the country probably won't be invaded, the world does not work like that anymore, but thew politicians are bickering all over the place, and the only way to fix out trillions in debt that is due when? Tomorrow? Is to raise taxes.
The chances of Texas governor Rick Perry becoming front-runner for the Republican nomination to take on Barack Obama rose on Thursday after a lacklustre showing by other candidates in the biggest debate so far.
Perry's office confirmed on Thursday he is planning to announce that he will join the race on Saturday at a conservative conference in Charleston, South Carolina.
Perry's entry came too late for him to participate in Thursday's debate in Ames, Iowa. It was an important debate, coming at the start of three hectic days of campaigning in the state where the first of the Republican caucuses is scheduled to be held in February.
Eight declared candidates took part but no clear winner emerged from what was a largely dull two hours. It was enlivened only by lively personal exchanges between Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and the former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, whose campaign is faltering.
Asked about Perry's imminent arrival in the race, the candidates were polite, with one describing him as formidable and another welcoming both him and Sarah Palin, should she choose to stand. Palin is scheduled to make a public appearance in Iowa on Friday.
Pawlenty badly needs to revive his campaign by doing well in the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, a traditional test of would-be presidential candidates. If he fails, he could see his remaining financial backers desert him.
Under pressure, his main target was predictably Bachmann, winner of the previous debate in New Hampshire and who is leading in the polls in Iowa. Adopting a patronising tone, he said Bachmann had done little in her five years in Congress. "She has done some wonderful things in her life but it is an indisputable fact that her record of accomplishment and results is nonexistent," Pawlenty said, trying to compensate for his failure to make an impact in the New Hampshire debate and shed his image of dullness.
But he picked on the wrong candidate. Bachmann came back recalling his record in office as governor on health, energy and trade. "That sounds a lot more like Barack Obama's record," she said. She also raised his record on abortion, a litmus issue for Republicans.
After a series of personal exchanges, Pawlenty called her position as "illogical".
Romney was left unscathed, which his campaign team was happy about. But Perry's arrival could provide him with real competition by the time of the next debate, in California, in September.
Pawlenty's jibes, which appeared to be prepared in advance, are unlikely to have swayed many doubters. Others who failed to make much of an impression included former senator Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.
Jon Huntsman made his debate debut. He has struggled in the polls, too close to the centre for many conservatives and also, unforgivable for many Republicans, he worked in the Obama administration as ambassador to China.
But his opening answer was poor. Asked for a detailed plan for tackling the economy, he said limply: "It is coming."
No thats not accurate, but I'm not going to discuss it here.
On the positive, Obama now has lower Gallup ratings than just about any President who was elected for a second term. Much like Obama in 2008, any incompetent boob could win against the incumbent party in 2012.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
Nonsense. The last person who brought a foreign army into North America ended uptrying to run away in a private's uniform. Since then we developed something called fusion bombs.
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
This has no basis in reality.
try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.
and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.
the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.
the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.
Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.
you have no basis in calling Obama an 'Incopetant Boob' while anyone could call B-U-S-H that
you can't just say: Someone is invading? NUKEMCUZWECAN! someone is spying? NUKEMCUZWECAN/! Ther is a spider on that wall? NUKEITCUZWECAN! in fact you cant really drop fusion bombs on people without the entire planet vilifying you to be the 'new russia'
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
This has no basis in reality.
try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.
and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.
the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.
the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.
Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.
ive already answered this.even if it was dis proven. Afghanistan, russia, north korea. if are economic collapsed are government would collapse,and are military would be weakened,so we would have a gap somewhere and they could slip through and win. never said it would be easy for them,just said its possible.
Afghanistan, north Korea, Russia, and probably others.
respectfully...
-Afghanistan only has running water and electricity occasionally.
-Russia , well they keenly aware of MAD.
-North Korea. Dude high school kids can kick their ass.
Frazzled wrote:Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.
Heck, they're 0-2 against Texas. You don't even need the other 49 states.
ineptus astartes wrote:oh great, a raging republican, here we go...
you have no basis in calling Obama an 'Incopetant Boob' while anyone could call B-U-S-H that
I know its a startling thought, but they can both be bumbling boobs.
In the last week alone we've been privy to three major regulatory increases: new fuel limits on heavy vehicles; new limits on coal plants that are forecast to endanger thousands of jobs; and for the new greener sensation of natural gas, new regulations on shale gas development which is going to dramatically impact future development. Thats before all the thousands of pages of banking regulation that are just now being developed. You thought getting a loan was hard before - guess what kids, thats the good old days.
you can't just say: Someone is invading? NUKEMCUZWECAN! someone is spying? NUKEMCUZWECAN/! Ther is a spider on that wall? NUKEITCUZWECAN! in fact you cant really drop fusion bombs on people without the entire planet vilifying you to be the 'new russia'
Don't be stupid. If a power was invading the US -which is what was stated and not your strange fear of poor innocent spiders who are just trying to get along in a shoe filled universe- we would use every weapon at our disposal to stop them. Thats kind of the point of having the nukes in the fuirst place.
Frazzled wrote:On the positive, Obama now has lower Gallup ratings than just about any President who was elected for a second term. Much like Obama in 2008, any incompetent boob could win against the incumbent party in 2012.
This is why I am so excited about the epic conservative butthurt that will happen in 2012, when Obama is re-elected anyway. Which he will be.
Sure, "Generic Republican Candidate" would win if the vote was today. But you don't have "Generic Republican Candidate". You have Mrs. Wacky Crazyeyes, Nobody from Minnesota, Serial Philanderer, Wrong Religion Guy, Bigoted Pizza Guy, and from there it gets worse. Your best hopes are W Bush II and The Half-Term Governor, neither of which have even declared.
@Frazzled. may I point out though, that even with our country's military might and all, other countries still have the advantage when it comes to soldier-for-solder survival,
so an American rifleman would be armed pretty much the same way as say, an Afghani soldier, they would pretty much have the same amount of training and gear, but add to that the fact that when you come from a place like Afghanistan you tend to be a bit tougher than a guy who grew up eating Cheetos and watching TV (quote form Blackhawk down I believe)
of course Afghanistan could not feasibly occupy the US so the point is moot.
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
This has no basis in reality.
try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.
and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.
the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.
the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.
Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.
ive already answered this.even if it was dis proven. Afghanistan, russia, north korea. if are economic collapsed are government would collapse,and are military would be weakened,so we would have a gap somewhere and they could slip through and win. never said it would be easy for them,just said its possible.
Dude, please educate yourself. Afghanistan is the donkey-cave of the universe. Norrth Korea is having problems feeding their own soldiers at this point. Russia is the only power and we successfully dealt with them when they were the Red Menace, not Boris' ice land of borscht, blonds, and Vodka.
EDIT: I have asudden desire to go to St. Petersberg now.
Frazzled, watching the War Channel while waiting for it to drop below one hundred before walking the dog. Lots of pics of Russians attacking Berlin.
Wife calls: "Whatcha doin?"
Frazzled: "Watching my relatives kick your relatives asses."
Wife: History channel again?
Frazzled: "Yep. Its like seeing an old family reunion."
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
This has no basis in reality.
try saying that on a site not about tiny little soldiers.
and yes it does. lots of countries would invade us if we fail and collapsed. are economy is failing,although its not as bad as the great depression.
the 10-20 years is just an estimate,who know what will happen in that time.
the smaller countries thing was just random thinking though.
Really? Exactly who is going to invade the US? Who is going to make through a rain of thousands of fusion warheads a dozen or so carrier groups? Canada likes us eh! and Mexico, well Mexico is 0-3 against the US, and thats BEFORE we got mean.
ive already answered this.even if it was dis proven. Afghanistan, russia, north korea. if are economic collapsed are government would collapse,and are military would be weakened,so we would have a gap somewhere and they could slip through and win. never said it would be easy for them,just said its possible.
Dude, please educate yourself. Afghanistan is the donkey-cave of the universe. North Korea is having problems feeding their own soldiers at this point. Russia is the only power and we successfully dealt with them when they were the Red Menace, not Boris' ice land of borscht, blonds, and Vodka.
everything i learned ive learned from school mostly. and just watching and reading news stuff. and history a little. and you seem to be ignoring the part were all of this invasion stuff is happening after for whatever reason America has fallen apart. at least russia could if it happened,and korea and afghan wold probably try too.
Frazzled wrote:On the positive, Obama now has lower Gallup ratings than just about any President who was elected for a second term. Much like Obama in 2008, any incompetent boob could win against the incumbent party in 2012.
This is why I am so excited about the epic conservative butthurt that will happen in 2012, when Obama is re-elected anyway. Which he will be.
Sure, "Generic Republican Candidate" would win if the vote was today. But you don't have "Generic Republican Candidate". You have Mrs. Wacky Crazyeyes, Nobody from Minnesota, Serial Philanderer, Wrong Religion Guy, Bigoted Pizza Guy, and from there it gets worse. Your best hopes are W Bush II and The Half-Term Governor, neither of which have even declared.
-You forgot Perrenial Crazy Libertarian Candidate who makes sense if you listen long enough and aren't wearing your aluminum hat.
And its all generally irrelevant. No sitting President is going to win with 9%+ unemployment.
That assumes we don't drop into another hard recession, but all indicators are that we are in it already.
I can't believe we're ever seriously discussion an invasion of the US by fifth string countries like Afghanistan, who can't even keep the lights on. They can't even successfully invade other parts of Afghanistan by themselves FFS.
Aside from our nuclear stockpile and that the only other powerful countries who might be so inclined to do so (China) could not do so (they lack enough landing craft to even feasibly invade Taiwan), the fact is that, per capita, we are a heavily armed and belligerent populace over a relatively large landmass that would prove nigh-impossible to hold and we'd gleefully annihilate rather then cede an inch of.
Frazzled wrote:And its all generally irrelevant. No sitting President is going to win with 9%+ unemployment.
This would be a valid point if there was a valid candidate, but the last poll numbers indicate that Obama would beat every single candidate the Republicans have save vs maybe Romney, and I think it's unlikely, but not impossible, they will nominate Romney. Sure, statistically with UE that high he should lose, but he has to lose to someone. He doesn't just lose by default.
ineptus astartes wrote:@Frazzled. may I point out though, that even with our country's military might and all, other countries still have the advantage when it comes to soldier-for-solder survival,
so an American rifleman would be armed pretty much the same way as say, an Afghani soldier, they would pretty much have the same amount of training and gear, but add to that the fact that when you come from a place like Afghanistan you tend to be a bit tougher than a guy who grew up eating Cheetos and watching TV (quote form Blackhawk down I believe)
of course Afghanistan could not feasibly occupy the US so the point is moot.
Tell them to bring it. This is our land and we'd exterminate them like a bad habit.
Actually thats not true. The Afghanis would airdrop in, discover the glory of chocolate and In N Out, and fade in with the other 20MM illegals we have here. Welcome comrades!
ineptus astartes wrote:and no, the point of having nukes is to wave them menacingly about and not use them at all in fact.
Says you, not the doctrines of Massive Retaliation and Mutual Assured Destruction, and threats by Eisenhower and Nixon...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:i cant believe how many people think America is invincible. its kinda scary and makes me realize why were so bad.
maybe afghan would have trouble but there are plenty of other countries that would be a-ok with invading us if we collapsed.
You keep blabbing but put up a real country or conglomeration of countries with sufficient capacity to invade the US. Seriously, this is getting tedious. What next? The uber power that is Somalia or the Isle of Man?
as amusing as that is let me point out that sweet is an acquired taste, my dad dislikes them because he grew up eating caveman food.
lets stop this ridiculas discussion on how America could be invaded.
it appears that you are utterly bent on the ideals that 'Liberals are stoopid, hurr.' but that is not the case, liberals are willing to change to accommodate, and conservatives want to keep it the same way (omigod Tzeentch is a democrat) each party has drawbacks.
You keep blabbing but put up a real country or conglomeration of countries with sufficient capacity to invade the US. Seriously, this is getting tedious. What next? The uber power that is Somalia or the Isle of Man?
Now they've held onto that AAA credit rating we're expecting big things from the Isle of Man.
in WWII they were used because nobody else knew how to make them. now you just use them as a threat, you know damn well that if people start throwing nukes around that these post apocRPGs we play wont be RPGs anymore.
as amusing as that is let me point out that sweet is an acquired taste, my dad dislikes them because he grew up eating caveman food.
lets stop this ridiculas discussion on how America could be invaded.
it appears that you are utterly bent on the ideals that 'Liberals are stoopid, hurr.' but that is not the case, liberals are willing to change to accommodate, and conservatives want to keep it the same way (omigod Tzeentch is a democrat) each party has drawbacks.
Hey I grew up on caveman food (broiled Mastadon ribs baby!). But I agree sweet is an acquired taste, TO BE ACQUIRED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE YEA!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ineptus astartes wrote:
it appears that you are utterly bent on the ideals that 'Liberals are stoopid, hurr.' but that is not the case, liberals are willing to change to accommodate, and conservatives want to keep it the same way (omigod Tzeentch is a democrat) each party has drawbacks.
I didn't say anything about liberals. I said Obama.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You keep blabbing but put up a real country or conglomeration of countries with sufficient capacity to invade the US. Seriously, this is getting tedious. What next? The uber power that is Somalia or the Isle of Man?
Now they've held onto that AAA credit rating we're expecting big things from the Isle of Man.
"The Bee Gees" were merely wave I.
Wait the BeeGees came form the Isle of Man. They have much to answer for now. Death before Disco!
Invading america is a ridiculous idea. Who else is unified enough, with enough technology and wealth, to successfully manage it with modern "acceptable" causulties? And somehow, I don't think my Yank brethren would happily accept their new overlords. The American Resistance?
obama has not been doing much because he was trying to quell the royal gak storm that bush created. hinestly, what was the point in invading iraq? did the 'victory' in Afghanistan feel so good he wanted to do it again?
what we should have done is have invaded Afghanistan killed a few terrorists/insurgents, called it a day and pulled out, but noooo...
ineptus astartes wrote:obama has not been doing much because he was trying to quell the royal shitstorm that bush created. hinestly, what was the point in invading iraq? did the 'victory' in Afghanistan feel so good he wanted to do it again?
what we should have done is have invaded Afghanistan killed a few terrorist called it a day and pulled out, but noooo...
Or alternatively, nuked them.
But bygones is bygones and none of that has anything to do with the economy, which is generally the only thing the USA really votes on.
ineptus astartes wrote:obama has not been doing much because he was trying to quell the royal shitstorm that bush created. hinestly, what was the point in invading iraq? did the 'victory' in Afghanistan feel so good he wanted to do it again?
what we should have done is have invaded Afghanistan killed a few terrorist called it a day and pulled out, but noooo...
Or alternatively, nuked them. But bygones is bygones and none of that has anything to do with the economy, which is generally the only thing the USA really votes on.
you can't put a nuclear weapon down some countries' throat because a few people in that country were feths. that would get every country in the world screaming into our collective ears.
ineptus astartes wrote:you can't put a nuclear weapon down some countries' throat because a few people in that country were feths. that would get every country in the world screaming into our collective ears.
ineptus astartes wrote:you can't put a nuclear weapon down some countries' throat because a few people in that country were feths. that would get every country in the world screaming into our collective ears.
Thats what people say.
it was a big deal when we shot a missile and blew up a few civilians. its gonna be a big deal when we blow up a country. its guys who think like that that prove this country sucks.
ineptus astartes wrote:you can't put a nuclear weapon down some countries' throat because a few people in that country were feths. that would get every country in the world screaming into our collective ears.
Thats what people say.
it was a big deal when we shot a missile and blew up a few civilians. its gonna be a big deal when we blow up a country. its guys who think like that that prove this country sucks.
Again, they say that a lot. but thats niehter here nor there. We're at where we at now, and whats important is how do we fix the problems.
I don't care if a Democrat did it. I don't care if a Republican did it. If there is a problem the president is being hired to fix the problem, not fix the blame. If he can't fix the problems then the people will bring in new management.
The problems haven't been fixed. Obama better start updating his resume.
streamdragon wrote:You honestly think there's a republican candidate that will oust him?
i dont care who it is,he needs to be gone. i agreed with nothing he ran for. i didnt even know the difference between republican and democrat til i saw this sheet with all 3 canadets takes on majors issues.
0 obama,4 bob, 9 republican. there were 10 topics.
streamdragon wrote:You honestly think there's a republican candidate that will oust him?
Any of them, assuming Hillary doesn't bite and challange herself (I doubt it but one can hope).
The election is not about the Republican. Its a referendum on Obama's job performance.
Which at least was better than the last eight years of republican presidency, which happened to have caused our economic collapse which Obama is struggling to try to reverse.
streamdragon wrote:You honestly think there's a republican candidate that will oust him?
Any of them, assuming Hillary doesn't bite and challange herself (I doubt it but one can hope).
The election is not about the Republican. Its a referendum on Obama's job performance.
It should be about the Republican though. This is the highest office in the country, one of extreme importance. Being "not the current guy" isn't a requirement, being fitted to the position is.
Obama hasn't turned the nation 180 degrees, I understand and agree with that sentiment. Considering the situation with Congress, I'm not sure what people really expected. When John McCain comes out and calls his own party on their bull**** against the person he himself ran against, that really says something. When you have a group of people who literally refuse to negotiate and compromise, I'm not sure how you expect anything to get accomplished or changed.
As powerful as the position of President is, there are the infamous check and balances built into the Constitution that reduce the ways he can act on his own. Granted, some presidents find creative ways to circumvent them (I'm not sending the military into Afghanistan, I'm sending the Guard who aren't technically military!) but that generally doesn't sit well with people.
Looking at the list of current presidential candidates for the Republicans makes me sad to admit I'm a registered Republican. The main issue is that the party has moved away from Financially Conservative (which drew me to the party in the first place) and has gone full on bat guano far right conservative. I can't look at a single one of the serious contenders and think "I want that person to run my government!"
Melissia wrote:Which at least was better than the last eight years of republican presidency, which happened to have caused our economic collapse which Obama is struggling to try to reverse.
its good you think that, although I didn't know Barney franks was a Republican. Its also blindingly irrelevant.
Congress is gridlocked, how many months did we spend on this debt ceiling debate? Nothing else was even considered during that time.
I didn't watch the debate, but I've seen a few clips and read some of the things that were said, Bachmann is about as crazy as they come I think.
Invasion of US? I really don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. The next time you see large roving armies and invasions, will be after WW3 and a nuclear holocaust.
Of Frazz, hopefully you aren't getting hit too hard by the drought. Maybe after this they'll stop building all over the natural aquafer and stop using millions of gallons of unrecoverable water for fracking
streamdragon wrote:You honestly think there's a republican candidate that will oust him?
Any of them, assuming Hillary doesn't bite and challange herself (I doubt it but one can hope).
The election is not about the Republican. Its a referendum on Obama's job performance.
It should be about the Republican though. This is the highest office in the country, one of extreme importance. Being "not the current guy" isn't a requirement, being fitted to the position is.
Just think with a pending S&P downgrade, this would have happened with Johnson? With Nixon? With Clinton? (Bill to S&P President "Yes, after Hillary gets through with you, I will feel your pain."). Argue anything you want about wars and the economy, but no President except Carter would have permitted S&P to do that.
Would the economy be rocketing towards a double dip under Kennedy? Under Truman?
Here's the thing. The best guy for the nation in the Republican side would be Romney. However people in this country, especially many of those in the Repub heavy states will not vote for him. Why? He is not of the same religion. Amazing that perhaps the best candidate for the job won't get a sniff due to his religion. Don't believe it? Look at Huckabee. Guy released a rapist because the guy said he found god. Rapist gets out and does it again....including murder I think. He did better than Romney last time around......due to religion. So much for separation of church and state. Brings back statements of G-dub consulting a "higher father."
That all said, I don't care who won the last election they were stepping into one of the worst periods in American history. This was coming and it happened to be on Obama's watch and make no mistake he inherited a crap storm from the last administration. Anyone who says otherwise is as insane as those people who said that we should let businesses fail. We did that during the great depression and the backlash made the siutation much worse.
This talk of no taxes is worrying, because the jargon has been, "If we give them tax breaks they will create jobs." Really? Is that why many of these big corps are stashing $$ overseas and NOT hiring in the US? Don't believe me? Check the Cisco CEO interview that was on 60 minutes. They are saying the tax breaks are still not enough. They want to make the $$ here, but not pay taxes or hire people. It's disgusting.
At the end of the day the majority of these politicians have no clue what it is to be middle class. You almost need to be a Millionaire to enter into politics these days. These people are clueless to the plight of the common American. I get some sense that Obama understands it a little, but the middle class is still struggling while the gap between the wealthy and the middle class grows.
That is 8 points above the incumbency threshold of 35% approval. The last President to lose a reelection bid, GHW, had to trend below 35% (and dipped below 30, briefly), consistently, before his loss.
It certainly won't be an easy election for the Democrats, but calling it at this point, when the Republican field hasn't even been finalized, is foolish, and likely trolling.
Melissia wrote:Which at least was better than the last eight years of republican presidency, which happened to have caused our economic collapse which Obama is struggling to try to reverse.
its good you think that, although I didn't know Barney franks was a Republican. Its also blindingly irrelevant.
No, I was talking about Bush. Be in denial all ya want, but Obama's still doing a better job, despite facing harder challenges.
Melissia wrote:Which at least was better than the last eight years of republican presidency, which happened to have caused our economic collapse which Obama is struggling to try to reverse.
its good you think that, although I didn't know Barney franks was a Republican. Its also blindingly irrelevant.
No, I was talking about Bush. Be in denial all ya want, but Obama's still doing a better job, despite facing harder challenges.
Mmm...yea.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oops I was wrong, Gallup's disapproval just went up 1%. 41/51. This is not good as its not even likely voters, just random mouth breathers.
Wow only Carter had lower ratings at this point of any President since FDR - the Gallup Presidential Approval Center is a fun toy.
In light of Congress' low ratings it would be ideal if we engendered a republican President and Senate, and democratic House. You don't want one party controlling everything and thats against historical norms.
Frazzled wrote:
Oops I was wrong, Gallup's disapproval just went up 1%. 41/51. This is not good as its not even likely voters, just random mouth breathers.
Actually, it is quite good for the Administration. As I pointed out earlier, and have for several months now, incumbents generally need to trend below 35% leading into an election in order to lose. That's what is took for Bush 1, and that's what it took for Carter.
Its also worth noting that "likely voters" is a label for a metric regarding those voters the polling agency believes are likely to vote, which is generally based on participation in past polls by that agency, voting behavior as reported by the respondent, and the likelihood of turnout as given by an in-house metric; usually derived from demographic information regarding age, sex, race, income level, etc.
There is no particular reason to believe that polls using likely voter metrics are more accurate than those that do not, and in fact they often diverge wildly from one another (Pew and Rasmussen, for example, tend to skew in opposite directions). The most reliable of true approval is an average of polls taking similar samples, whether adjusted or not.
Frazzled wrote:
In light of Congress' low ratings it would be ideal if we engendered a republican President and Senate, and democratic House. You don't want one party controlling everything and thats against historical norms.
That might matter if partisanship meant the same thing in history as it does today. Since that isn't the case, it may be more favorable for one party to control government.
Seeing as I have been able to live through only three presidents (Clinton, Bush and now Obama), I don't think Obama is doing that bad. He is simply playing with the cards he was dealt, which is something like a 2 of spades and a one card from uno.
I think the problem is the "Tea Party" who throw tantrums unless they get their way.
Anyone up for reviving Teddy Roosevelt? I liked that guy.
Obama vs Bachmann: Obama wins by 11 points
Obama vs Romney: Obama wins by 3 points
Obama vs Perry: Obama wins by 11 points
Obama vs Palin: Obama wins by 18 points
Obama vs Cain: Obama wins by 15 points
Obama vs Pawlenty: Obama wins by 11 points
Obama vs Gingrich: Obama wins by 15 points
Obama vs Huntsman: Obama wins by 14 points
Obama vs Paul: Obama wins by 11 points
I understand that Obama's numbers are quite poor, and are on the low end of what would normally win an election. Do you understand that, while Obama is tied with Generic Republican, that Generic Republican is not running, and that it will be a choice between Obama and one of the specific people above?
Happygrunt wrote:Seeing as I have been able to live through only three presidents (Clinton, Bush and now Obama), I don't think Obama is doing that bad. He is simply playing with the cards he was dealt, which is something like a 2 of spades and a one card from uno.
I think the problem is the "Tea Party" who throw tantrums unless they get their way.
Anyone up for reviving Teddy Roosevelt? I liked that guy.
Teddy would have seriously punched those guys in the face, on the house/senate floor, for the kind of gak they talk.
He would have then used his bully-pulpit to enact the change he thought was necessary through executive order, at least as much as it could have been. Of course if Obama did anything like that, Fox News and the conservative blogs would meltdown claiming the Third Reich had taken over 'Merica.
Of course he has higher polls numbers than one of the 8-15 people running. Duh! They just started running. There hasn't even been a primary yet and he's the incumbent.
dogma wrote:That might matter if partisanship meant the same thing in history as it does today. Since that isn't the case, it may be more favorable for one party to control government.
Let's hope it's not Tea Party, because we want competent people in the government...
daedalus-templarius wrote:Bipartisanship, a thing of the past.
Now its, "GO TEAM!"
Is it bipartisanship when Democrats side with Republicans (like in the debt deal), or does that only apply when Republicans side with Democrats?
Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.
As much as I'd prefer the political process to be open and transparent, it just seems to lead to showboating and pointless political votes on nothing, especially when they know something isn't going to pass. Perhaps behind closed doors, WITHOUT LOBBYISTS, would be the best way for them to hammer out deals.
Of course, publicly funded elections I think would be the first step, as I'd love the huge donations and subsequent indebtedness to be gone from the political process. Good luck to that ever happening, hah.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Bipartisanship, a thing of the past.
Now its, "GO TEAM!"
Is it bipartisanship when Democrats side with Republicans (like in the debt deal), or does that only apply when Republicans side with Democrats?
Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground.
Except of course on the stimulus bill, and the deficit growth reduction bill just passed.
Since the House has passed multiple budgets, had passed multiple bills cncerning the debt and none of them were approved by the Senate, since the Senate hasn't put forth a budget, since the President hasn't put forth a budget passable by his own party, who's the one with no middle ground?
daedalus-templarius wrote:Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.
Is this any different than the Democrats "going it alone" on the Healthcare bill? Were the Democrats lining up to make a bipartisan deal and meet the Republicans in the middle, or did they say it was "their way or the highway"?
daedalus-templarius wrote:Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.
Is this any different than the Democrats "going it alone" on the Healthcare bill? Were the Democrats lining up to make a bipartisan deal and meet the Republicans in the middle, or did they say it was "their way or the highway"?
Yea you're right, gridlock and doing nothing are much better than the alternative.
Our healthcare system isn't in dire need of reform or anything.
Also Frazz, I'm pretty sure the bills that passed the house didn't do so with "bipartisan" support, other than the one they voted for the day before the default. And even then, the tea party contingent voted no to a great degree.
Besides, I said they aren't ALL against making deals, especially out of the spotlight.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.
Is this any different than the Democrats "going it alone" on the Healthcare bill? Were the Democrats lining up to make a bipartisan deal and meet the Republicans in the middle, or did they say it was "their way or the highway"?
Yea you're right, gridlock and doing nothing are much better than the alternative.
Our healthcare system isn't in dire need of reform or anything.
Also Frazz, I'm pretty sure the bills that passed the house didn't do so with "bipartisan" support, other than the one they voted for the day before the default.
You're right. But being that the Senate didn't take them up, didn't pass anything. and Obama didn't proposeanything. its defenders need to seriously STFU.
Oh I didn't realize I was defending their actions during this whole debt debacle... because I wasn't. I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by it at every turn; especially considering we've raised the debt ceiling 100+ times in the past without this kind of wild spectacle.
However, you realize that these funding bills are supposed to originate from the House, not the Senate or the Executive branch. They should have just raised the debt ceiling clean, and then worked on the budget separately rather than the Armadebton that we had to hyperbole through.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Oh I didn't realize I was defending their actions during this whole debt debacle... because I wasn't. I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by it at every turn; especially considering we've raised the debt ceiling 100+ times in the past without this kind of wild spectacle.
However, you realize that these funding bills are supposed to originate from the House, not the Senate or the Executive branch. They should have just raised the debt ceiling clean, and then worked on the budget separately rather than the Armadebton that we had to hyperbole through.
They tried that in 1st Qtr 2011. Both houses voted down. In the Senate it was 97-0 I think.
At that point Captain React S..l..o..l..w..l..y Obama proposed nothing.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.
Is this any different than the Democrats "going it alone" on the Healthcare bill? Were the Democrats lining up to make a bipartisan deal and meet the Republicans in the middle, or did they say it was "their way or the highway"?
Yea you're right, gridlock and doing nothing are much better than the alternative.
Our healthcare system isn't in dire need of reform or anything.
Is that a "yes" or a "no"?
Assuming bipartisanship is a positive, how is "going it alone" and sticking to your principles a good thing on the Healthcare bill, but a bad thing on the debt ceiling?
biccat wrote:
Assuming bipartisanship is a positive, how is "going it alone" and sticking to your principles a good thing on the Healthcare bill, but a bad thing on the debt ceiling?
Debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962; almost exclusively without the drama we witnessed unfold before us recently.
biccat wrote:
Assuming bipartisanship is a positive, how is "going it alone" and sticking to your principles a good thing on the Healthcare bill, but a bad thing on the debt ceiling?
Debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962; almost exclusively without the drama we witnessed unfold before us recently.
Healthcare bill has happened 1 times since ever.
So as long as it's something novel, refusing to negotiate with the other side is OK? So if Republicans proposed a "reducing federal expenses in 2011" bill, bipartisanship would be a bad thing?
Also, there have been hundreds of bills that have passed Congress that have addressed health care.
biccat wrote:
Assuming bipartisanship is a positive, how is "going it alone" and sticking to your principles a good thing on the Healthcare bill, but a bad thing on the debt ceiling?
Debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962; almost exclusively without the drama we witnessed unfold before us recently.
Healthcare bill has happened 1 times since ever.
So as long as it's something novel, refusing to negotiate with the other side is OK? So if Republicans proposed a "reducing federal expenses in 2011" bill, bipartisanship would be a bad thing?
Also, there have been hundreds of bills that have passed Congress that have addressed health care.
Yea, sure, its "novel". They just figured, "y'know, 2011, we should stop just passing these debt ceiling raises. Even though Bush raised it 8 times, but now? no way!" Sure, I can get behind that... yea.
I'm sure there is plenty of room for improvement in the fed, and tons of waste, but debating it during the debt ceiling isn't really the place.
As for the previous health-care bills, they obviously hadn't done enough, since the Healthcare industry have been content to ride us raw for the past several years. Will this new one fix everything? probably not, but its better than it was. Removing pre-existing conditions bs was enough to get me onboard.
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
Is this before or after the apes rise up claim the earth? Will Jesus come riding back on a dinosaur to save us? So much crazy, so little time...
daedalus-templarius wrote:Yea, sure, its "novel". They just figured, "y'know, 2011, we should stop just passing these debt ceiling raises. Even though Bush raised it 8 times, but now? no way!" Sure, I can get behind that... yea.
Actually, it is a bill to immediately reduce year-to-year expenses. Given how rare it is, I think that would qualify as 'novel.'
daedalus-templarius wrote:As for the previous health-care bills, they obviously hadn't done enough, since the Healthcare industry have been content to ride us raw for the past several years. Will this new one fix everything? probably not, but its better than it was. Removing pre-existing conditions bs was enough to get me onboard.
Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).
You're picking sides and declaring which side should 'compromise' in order to get your preferred result. There's nothing wrong with that, but claiming that Republicans are wrong because they refuse to compromise while Democrats are right because they refused to compromise smacks of hypocricy.
biccat wrote:
Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).
You're picking sides and declaring which side should 'compromise' in order to get your preferred result. There's nothing wrong with that, but claiming that Republicans are wrong because they refuse to compromise while Democrats are right because they refused to compromise smacks of hypocricy.
Sigh Frazz
Yawn, wake me when it gets to the Supreme Court.
Sigh, both sides should compromise more, not for my preferred result, but for a better result. Unfortunately this is how it seems to usually go
And after the search it took me to find this damn cartoon, you guys have fun.
In the end, they are all mostly self-serving politician donkey-caves, other than a faint glimmer of looking out for 'regular people/peons' every once in a while, I'm sure they are far more concerned with their political future/business-corporate donors.
ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.
understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.
Is this before or after the apes rise up claim the earth? Will Jesus come riding back on a dinosaur to save us? So much crazy, so little time...
WDWJR baby! (what dino would Jesus ride?) I hope there are a lot of coconuts for the TRexes are it might get prickly...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus-templarius wrote:
biccat wrote:
Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).
You're picking sides and declaring which side should 'compromise' in order to get your preferred result. There's nothing wrong with that, but claiming that Republicans are wrong because they refuse to compromise while Democrats are right because they refused to compromise smacks of hypocricy.
Sigh Frazz
Yawn, wake me when it gets to the Supreme Court.
Sigh, both sides should compromise more, not for my preferred result, but for a better result. Unfortunately this is how it seems to usually go
And after the search it took me to find this damn cartoon, you guys have fun.
Cartoons are . Obama did not put forth a plan. Obama did put forth a request for a clean bill which was killed mightily by both houses. Obama has not put forth a revised budget since the horror show earlier in the year which also was not approved (not sure it was even taken up) by his own Democrat controlled Senate.
He tried to make a 4T plan with Bohner, which Bohner walked away from since it closed corporate loopholes and MIGHT have increased taxes on the top 1%.
Happygrunt wrote:Just a friendly reminder. Let's all be civil. I see where this is going...
A couple of key facts:
1. This is a political discussion
2. We are on "the interwebz"
3. This is Dakka Dakka (with a cast of OT regulars who haunt these types of threads churning out the same biased/entrenched talking points time after time)
You could see where this was going as soon as the OP's post appeared.
But then we all secretly (and for some of us not so secretly) know and enjoy that fact.
My advice: sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show, if it ends abruptly another one will start up in a matter of hours...
Happygrunt wrote:Just a friendly reminder. Let's all be civil. I see where this is going...
Good point. I shall eat some Doritoes and remain civil.
You'll all be happy to note that TBone the Yoda of wiener dogs has fully recovered and is back to his ball retrieving self.
And if you're not happy to note that then I'd advise staying away from unmarked vans in the near term. The dread "800 dachshund ambush" is a terrible thing to behold.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus-templarius wrote:He tried to make a 4T plan with Bohner, which Bohner walked away from since it closed corporate loopholes and MIGHT have increased taxes on the top 1%.
3. This is Dakka Dakka (with a cast of OT regulars who haunt these types of threads churning out the same biased/entrenched talking points time after time)
You could see where this was going as soon as the OP's post appeared.
But then we all secretly (and for some of us not so secretly) know and enjoy that fact.
I realized on my way driving home, why do I even try sometimes. I believe I've come to this conclusion before during other "political debates" here.
Ouze wrote:
I understand that Obama's numbers are quite poor, and are on the low end of what would normally win an election. Do you understand that, while Obama is tied with Generic Republican, that Generic Republican is not running, and that it will be a choice between Obama and one of the specific people above?
They actually aren't. A year out from the 1996 Presidential election Clinton was polling between 46-50% approval, a year out from the 1984 election Regan was polling between 44-47%. Bush consistently posted numbers higher than 50% one year before 2004, but only just barely. Its also worth noting that all incumbents saw significant increases in their numbers as the campaign progressed (except, oddly enough, the younger Bush who entered with the strongest numbers), even the elder Bush. Hell, even Carter got a significant boost, and he, like Bush, was well below 35%.
The problem with polling is that you can't simply look at the percentages offered and draw a conclusion based on the raw data. You also have to know something about the history of polling relative to electoral outcomes, and the way methodology impacts results. There's a reason that political campaigns have polling consultants.
Frazzled wrote:
Since the House has passed multiple budgets, had passed multiple bills cncerning the debt and none of them were approved by the Senate, since the Senate hasn't put forth a budget, since the President hasn't put forth a budget passable by his own party, who's the one with no middle ground?
As I understand the argument here, the Republican controlled House can be shown to be willing to compromise because they passed a budget, while the Democrat controlled Senate is shown to be unwilling to compromise because they did not pass those same budgets. This is then being seen as a willingness of the Republicans to compromise, being as they were able to pass a budget in the house they controlled, but the Democrats are unwilling to compromise because they would not pass the same budgets in the house they controlled.
This seems like a strange argument, and the idea that the budget put forth by Obama was not passable by his own party seems all the stranger, since any such bill would have to originate in the Republican controlled House; indicating that a House Democrat would have to propose it in his name there.
Frazzled wrote:
You're right. But being that the Senate didn't take them up, didn't pass anything. and Obama didn't proposeanything. its defenders need to seriously STFU.
No they don't, in fact they shouldn't, that would mean giving in to the browbeating you're displaying here.
In any case, it seems like you're confused. You stated that Obama has proposed nothing, and that he has proposed at least one bill which his party could not pass; these are mutually exclusive. Additionally, if we carry your metaphor from partisan control above, the unwillingness of the Senate to pass a bill does not necessarily mean that the Senate refuses to compromise, it might also mean that the House failed to submit a bill they could agree on.
biccat wrote:Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).
What actually happened was substantially different then your summary, in fact, the entire law was ruled constitutional, overriding a previous decision which threw out the whole thing, which the sole exception of the individual mandate element. All of which is largely moot until it hits the Supreme Court.
dogma wrote:This seems like a strange argument, and the idea that the budget put forth by Obama was not passable by his own party seems all the stranger, since any such bill would have to originate in the Republican controlled House; indicating that a House Democrat would have to propose it in his name there.
Also, the Senate can take any bill that has originated in the House and amend the whole thing to contain whatever they want, then send it back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).
What actually happened was substantially different then your summary, in fact, the entire law was ruled constitutional, overriding a previous decision which threw out the whole thing, which the sole exception of the individual mandate element. All of which is largely moot until it hits the Supreme Court.
Laws aren't ruled constitutional. They're either within the constitutional power of Congress or they're ruled unconstitutional.
Also, I think the Supremes will reinstate the lower court's argument against severability. The legislative (and political) history on that particular point is pretty clear.
Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.
The budget that was rejected was put forward in February, by the way.
biccat wrote:
Also, the Senate can take any bill that has originated in the House and amend the whole thing to contain whatever they want, then send it back.
That isn't true of any bill which contains provisions regarding either specific or general appropriations, as they are subject to the Senate's germaneness rules (in fact, that's one of the few things that is). All budget bills that have been discussed in this year have contained such provisions, at the very least as regards budget cuts. In fact, that's why it was necessary for Reid's bill to be considered by the House under a suspension of House rules, that chambers rules being much easier to work around in matters of revenue.
Happygrunt wrote:Seeing as I have been able to live through only three presidents (Clinton, Bush and now Obama), I don't think Obama is doing that bad. He is simply playing with the cards he was dealt, which is something like a 2 of spades and a one card from uno.
I think the problem is the "Tea Party" who throw tantrums unless they get their way.
Anyone up for reviving Teddy Roosevelt? I liked that guy.
Getting things done doesn't mean that they're being done right or Constitutionally. Teddy Roosevelt was a president who believed in eugenics, big government intervention in business and was a complete war monger. He's hardly great. I would put him the bottom half of presidents at best.
I would also like to know what the Tea Party has actually won? They haven't gotten a thing that they wanted. Yet the narrative is that they control the Republican congress. Hardly, Boehner and McConnell are spineless and wouldn't dare draw the ire of the media. So please explain to me what the Tea Party has won?
Happygrunt wrote:Seeing as I have been able to live through only three presidents (Clinton, Bush and now Obama), I don't think Obama is doing that bad. He is simply playing with the cards he was dealt, which is something like a 2 of spades and a one card from uno.
I think the problem is the "Tea Party" who throw tantrums unless they get their way.
Anyone up for reviving Teddy Roosevelt? I liked that guy.
Getting things done doesn't mean that they're being done right or Constitutionally. Teddy Roosevelt was a president who believed in eugenics, big government intervention in business and was a complete war monger. He's hardly great. I would put him the bottom half of presidents at best.
I would also like to know what the Tea Party has actually won? They haven't gotten a thing that they wanted. Yet the narrative is that they control the Republican congress. Hardly, Boehner and McConnell are spineless and wouldn't dare draw the ire of the media. So please explain to me what the Tea Party has won?
everything i learned ive learned from school mostly.
Which judging by your spelling and grammar, isn't very much. I know it's a little harsh, but if you can't be bothered to even try to use the correct words to express yourself, much less punctuate them, we can't be bothered to take you seriously. It's like trying to apply for a job, but you won't even bother to brush your teeth, shave, or put on pants.
I am not trolling, nor am I insulting. I am simply grumpy that Frazzled is denying true facts. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black ,I have seen grammar and spelling mistakes from every user here.
ineptus astartes wrote:behold everybody: Frazzled: raging conservative. Who has to control his temper!
This was blatant trolling, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
ineptus astartes wrote:I am not trolling, nor am I insulting. I am simply grumpy that Frazzled is denying true facts. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black ,I have seen grammar and spelling mistakes from every user here.
The point is that anyone with basic reading skills can tell the difference between someone who tries and someone who doesn't. As an example, refer to the quote at the top of this post.
ineptus astartes wrote:I am not trolling, nor am I insulting. I am simply grumpy that Frazzled is denying true facts. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black ,I have seen grammar and spelling mistakes from every user here.
*Unless you're Stalin, Pol Pot, or Alfred E Neuman just because its your opinion doesn't make it a fact.
*I'm not the one slamming your grammar et al, so please aim your missives at someone else.
You have a tendency to deny factual information, and misunderstand the distinction between fact and opinion only to subsequently hide behind your inability to understand it.
ineptus astartes wrote:well, the country probably won't be invaded, the world does not work like that anymore, but thew politicians are bickering all over the place, and the only way to fix out trillions in debt that is due when? Tomorrow? Is to raise taxes.
Lmao..What hole do you live in the United states has invaded two countrys in the last ten years.It also looks like syria up next and nato forces are dropping bombs inlibya still.Im sure ground troops wil follow.
palehorse wrote:Wow you guys have some interesting ideas.Please go on.
Realize where the sarcasm starts/stops. This is the OT. things are not as they always seem.
I'm not sure what your trying to tell me?I have a very open mind and would like to read what you gentlemen have to type.Plain and simple.
On topic,my point about invasion being nonexistent in this day and age.Since the year i was born in 1979 the Russians invaded Afganistan.In the 80s Argentina Invaded the falklyn islands,the United States inveded panima and granada,Iraq invaded Iran.In the 90s the U.s. invaded Iraq.In the 2000s the U.s. Invaded both Afganistan and Iraq again,The Russians invaded georgia and chechnya.This is just off the top of my head.Not even to bring up all of the United nation actions over the years sticking their troops into sovereign Nations.
I'm pretty sure Invasions still happen.The jury is still out on Syria.We will see.Right, wrong or indifferent.
On the debates i think Dr Paul Hit the Nail on the head about a few things.
Well, the point is that, yes, those places were invaded - that doesn't mean Syria will be invaded. It won't. Invading Syria would be stupid, and most nations with the capability to do so understand this.
Albatross wrote:Well, the point is that, yes, those places were invaded - that doesn't mean Syria will be invaded. It won't. Invading Syria would be stupid, and most nations with the capability to do so understand this.
Albatross wrote:Well, the point is that, yes, those places were invaded - that doesn't mean Syria will be invaded. It won't. Invading Syria would be stupid, and most nations with the capability to do so understand this.
You sound like me.
I guess I'm pretty similar to you, in that my political views amount to a boot stamping on a human face, forever....
i dont care.
.plus i never even mentioned mexico.
with 9%+ unemployment.
you better not have been serious....
