Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year.

***Funny because thats exactly not how he operated when he controlled Congress...

Of course it is. Or the healthcare bill would have gotten passed in a month, and included a public option. Not a year and been watered down to pander to people who would rather poor people die in the street.

I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word socialism means in either it's historic, dictionary, literary, or U.S. political context.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word socialism means in either it's historic, dictionary, literary, or U.S. political context.

So trolling is bad but flaming is totally fine?

I love when people who don't know you automatically assume you are idiot because you have an opinion they don't like.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.

Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity. It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane. I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.

I'm not faulting him. If I were President and had control I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't have let the Creature (Pelosi) hijack my proposals. But then again, if I were eleceted all that hassle of voting would be a thing of the past anyway. Just do what I say and everything will be all right.

On the positive between this joke, the actual commission recommendations (which I put faith and great store by as they have actually moved to the "how do we implement this stage") Ryan's plan of rightwing nuttiness and a few others that will pop up I think we can make sausage out of this puppy, which is how the system is supposed to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year.

***Funny because thats exactly not how he operated when he controlled Congress...

Of course it is. Or the healthcare bill would have gotten passed in a month, and included a public option. Not a year and been watered down to pander to people who would rather poor people die in the street.

He didn't try it in the first few months if you recollect. The horror of the Pelosi Democrat gravy train (stimulus bill); Global tax and Spend; and then healthcare hit. He couldn't do that first because of that whole imploding economy thing. By the time he got around to it (besides again letting Pelosi craft it-why? why?!?!?) there was already heavy blowback from the previous bills.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word socialism means in either it's historic, dictionary, literary, or U.S. political context.

So trolling is bad but flaming is totally fine?

I love when people who don't know you automatically assume you are idiot because you have an opinion they don't like.

Its fun isn't it?

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word socialism means in either it's historic, dictionary, literary, or U.S. political context.

So trolling is bad but flaming is totally fine?

I love when people who don't know you automatically assume you are idiot because you have an opinion they don't like.

Please then, enlighten about what obama believes or espouses that makes him blatantly socialist. As a litmus test I'm going to do the Ronald Raegan comparison. It has to be something Ronald Raegan didn't also believe or espouse. Be careful about your examples, Obamas socialism is the same standard progressivism that has been in American politics for 70 years and I'm not going to have a hard time drawing direct comparisons.

As you may have noticed before, I dislike opinions that do not respect reality or are self conflicting. The idea that Obama is specially a socialist among american politics does not conform to the reality of American politics.

It is not flaming to say that you don't think someone knows something. It is flaming to call them an idiot. They are not the same thing.

The idiot is implied by the tone.

On a side note, I hear that John Boehner himself believes that global warming is real and excessive UV exposure causes cancer, but pretends otherwise, and makes himself a self-tanning potion from the fat of murdered babies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:The idiot is implied by the tone.

Tone is a darn tricky thing to judge on the internet, and most of us are better off assuming that (or at least acting as if) a pleasant, charitable tone is being used. If you think the person is being rude or breaking the rules, hit Alert Moderator.

Mannahnin wrote:On a side note, I hear that John Boehner himself believes that global warming is real and excessive UV exposure causes cancer, but pretends otherwise, and makes himself a self-tanning potion from the fat of murdered babies.

#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Mannahnin wrote:On a side note, I hear that John Boehner himself believes that global warming is real and excessive UV exposure causes cancer, but pretends otherwise, and makes himself a self-tanning potion from the fat of murdered babies.

***I thought it was babies and puppies? You don't get that vaguely orange tan just with babies. have we learned nothing from the Kerry fiasco?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:The idiot is implied by the tone.

Tone is a darn tricky thing to judge on the internet, and most of us are better off assuming that (or at least acting as if) a pleasant, charitable tone is being used. If you think the person is being rude or breaking the rules, hit Alert Moderator.

***I think the next post right above yours helps clarify his tone actually.

Frazzled wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.

Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity. It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane. I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.

I'm not faulting him. If I were President and had control I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't have let the Creature (Pelosi) hijack my proposals. But then again, if I were eleceted all that hassle of voting would be a thing of the past anyway. Just do what I say and everything will be all right.

On the positive between this joke, the actual commission recommendations (which I put faith and great store by as they have actually moved to the "how do we implement this stage") Ryan's plan of rightwing nuttiness and a few others that will pop up I think we can make sausage out of this puppy, which is how the system is supposed to work.

If you posted more stuff like this we'd agree a lot more and you'd get in a lot fewer fights.

Frazzled wrote:[

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year.

***Funny because thats exactly not how he operated when he controlled Congress...

Of course it is. Or the healthcare bill would have gotten passed in a month, and included a public option. Not a year and been watered down to pander to people who would rather poor people die in the street.

He didn't try it in the first few months if you recollect. The horror of the Pelosi Democrat gravy train (stimulus bill); Global tax and Spend; and then healthcare hit. He couldn't do that first because of that whole imploding economy thing. By the time he got around to it (besides again letting Pelosi craft it-why? why?!?!?) there was already heavy blowback from the previous bills.

The stimulus bill/economic disaster aversion methods were a baton passed to him from the outgoing team. Pretty much everyone from both parties got on that gravy train, even if they lied about it afterward (like Palin, among others).

I reiterate: The healthcare bill was worked on for over a year, and vastly watered down in trying to get Republicans on boad, including abandoning the public option he championed strongly when he was running for election. He had control of both houses congress. He easily could have passed a much different bill without making concessions to Republicans. But that's not what he did, in clear contradiction to your contention that he is not a compromiser and consensus-seeker.

ShumaGorath wrote:Obamas socialism is the same standard progressivism that has been in American politics for 70 years

That progressivism is socialist. Much of the modern Democratic Party is little more than an American socialist party. Not all, but a lot.

Nationalized/Centralized medicine is socialist.
Aggressively progressive income taxes are socialist.
Increased aide and subsidies for the underprivileged and poor are socialist.
Emphasis on federal over state and local government is socialist.
Emphasis on collectivism over individualism is socialist.

If you think those are all good things that’s fine, but they are all socialist ideas.

You only have to listen to the guy speak for about five minutes before you get a good picture of where his mind really lies. I'm sorry if the label appropriate for his ideaology is political suicide, but it is what it is.

No he needed the extra support from his own base to pass it. reason being it was so bad many knew it would hurt them. Voila we now have a strongly Republican Congrss and high likelihood of a Republican Senate after the next election. They over reached and the people called them on it.

Play nice guys.

I feel let down by BO, and I find it sad that his most rabid fans, are the people hurt worst by his caving in. All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. to see what ever he says The other side will be against it. If he wants to cut medicare and medicaid fine. but there better be some tax hikes and Military base closings to go along with it. I wish the guy would spend time shooting town crazy myths as well.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.

Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity.

And again, I point to the healthcare bill as an enormous piece of evidence that he tries to build consensus and get bipartisan agreement even when he doesn't have to and it pisses off his liberal supporters.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:[It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane.

So should I accuse you of flaming when you use the phrase "insane" to describe the policies which won him election to the office of President by the majority of American voters? The American people elected a firm advocate for and supporter of a Public Option. He beat up McCain in the debates in part by advocating that we deserve access to the same kind of healthcare that he and McCain enjoyed as Senators. Despite that, and despite the Dems having both house of Congress for two years, they bent over backwards to water down their healthcare bill to try to get bipartisan support, and gave away the Public Option.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:No he needed the extra support from his own base to pass it. reason being it was so bad many knew it would hurt them. Voila we now have a strongly Republican Congrss and high likelihood of a Republican Senate after the next election. They over reached and the people called them on it.

Not at all. The majority of American voters elected a guy who promised them a public option. They got beat up in the midterms because they lacked the balls to stand up and fight for what we elected them to give us. And they let nutjobs screaming about "death panels" in town halls control the debate over the healthcare bill.

sexiest_hero wrote: All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. .

Comment sections on most sites are a toxic miasma of conflicted, half-aware ramblings made by people that can barely string a grammatically proper sentence together.

Kind of like talking politics on facebook too. Some places claim they moderate their comments, but I don't ever believe it.

Why are you guys throwing around words when you don't tell me what you mean?

Death Panels, Socialism, Liberalism, I want you to give me the fething definition if you are going to use the word.

Don't use Socialism as a negative term, its not, it is working for countries that are handling themselves hell of a lot better in the world than the United States.

sexiest_hero wrote: If he wants to cut medicare and medicaid fine. but there better be some tax hikes and Military base closings to go along with it.

Why? We spend about twice the money on entitlement as we do the military. Why shouldn't they get twice the cuts. Not to mention virtually all of the almost 4 trillion dollars in debt he has wracked up has been in stimilus or entitlements. It would take a $1.5 trillion per year cut (all in entitlements and stimulus) just to get us back to a $400 billion deficet with defense spending being around 1/3 of the budget.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote: All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. .

Comment sections on most sites are a toxic miasma of conflicted, half-aware ramblings made by people that can barely string a grammatically proper sentence together.

Wow its almost like someone is talking about me.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Social Security, Medicare, [...] will be exempted.

Then it's not gonna work...

* Comprehensive tax reform, which reduces loopholes, simplifies the system, allows the Bush tax cuts for high-income earners to expire, and reduces the corporate tax rate.

Well, at least THAT will help. The top percent get taxed a smaller percent of their money than the middle class because of these loopholes and etc.

Mannahnin wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.

Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity.

And again, I point to the healthcare bill as an enormous piece of evidence that he tries to build consensus and get bipartisan agreement even when he doesn't have to and it pisses off his liberal supporters.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:[It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane.

So should I accuse you of flaming when you use the phrase "insane" to describe the policies which won him election to the office of President by the majority of American voters? The American people elected a firm advocate for and supporter of a Public Option. He beat up McCain in the debates in part by advocating that we deserve access to the same kind of healthcare that he and McCain enjoyed as Senators. Despite that, and despite the Dems having both house of Congress for two years, they bent over backwards to water down their healthcare bill to try to get bipartisan support, and gave away the Public Option.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:No he needed the extra support from his own base to pass it. reason being it was so bad many knew it would hurt them. Voila we now have a strongly Republican Congrss and high likelihood of a Republican Senate after the next election. They over reached and the people called them on it.

Not at all. The majority of American voters elected a guy who promised them a public option. They got beat up in the midterms because they lacked the balls to stand up and fight for what we elected them to give us. And they let nutjobs screaming about "death panels" in town halls control the debate over the healthcare bill.

Incorrect. Obama won because he wasn't Bush. The Democrats could have run a complete nobody and he would have beaten the Republican candidate ...oh wait!....

ShumaGorath wrote:Lets see how well congress can get along now that theres an actual, meaningful, and essential discussion being held. Probably not well.

Totally agree.

You were talking about Democrat obstruction to the Republican budget plan, right?

And McCain wasn't Bush either, despite how hard he tried to appear like him...

Frazzled wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote: All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. .

Comment sections on most sites are a toxic miasma of conflicted, half-aware ramblings made by people that can barely string a grammatically proper sentence together.

Wow its almost like someone is talking about me.

Oh Frazzled, no that wasn't actually aimed at you at all. I mean, have you read Youtube comments before? or Yahoo comments? They make my head hurt.

I think you are perfectly capable of putting together a grammatically proper sentence, and I generally don't consider your comments to be a toxic miasma either, however I do occasionally disagree with them

biccat wrote:
You were talking about Democrat obstruction to the Republican budget plan, right?

Even Reagan's budget advisor say's his plan is bunk, as does just about every other economist I've seen a reaction from. His cuts to education are particularly revolting.

biccat wrote:You were talking about Democrat obstruction to the Republican budget plan, right?

Republicans don't have a budget plan, they have a torch, a soapbox, and a megaphone.

Karon wrote:Why are you guys throwing around words when you don't tell me what you mean?

Death Panels, Socialism, Liberalism, I want you to give me the fething definition if you are going to use the word.

Don't use Socialism as a negative term, its not, it is working for countries that are handling themselves hell of a lot better in the world than the United States.

I 'm just addressing the death panel thing. When an organization sudenly determines that the primary ways of determining cancer that kills millions of women is no longer needed for women over 70 you better believe thats a god damn death panel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote: All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. .

Comment sections on most sites are a toxic miasma of conflicted, half-aware ramblings made by people that can barely string a grammatically proper sentence together.

Wow its almost like someone is talking about me.

Oh Frazzled, no that wasn't actually aimed at you at all. I mean, have you read Youtube comments before? or Yahoo comments? They make my head hurt.

I think you are perfectly capable of putting together a grammatically proper sentence, and I generally don't consider your comments to be a toxic miasma either, however I do occasionally disagree with them

biccat wrote:
You were talking about Democrat obstruction to the Republican budget plan, right?

My wife call's my opinions "absolute crap" I thought she had called in a vote.

Even Reagan's budget advisor say's his plan is bunk, as does just about every other economist I've seen a reaction from. His cuts to education are particularly revolting.

Frazzled wrote:I'm not faulting him. If I were President and had control I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't have let the Creature (Pelosi) hijack my proposals. But then again, if I were eleceted all that hassle of voting would be a thing of the past anyway. Just do what I say and everything will be all right.

Seems you've got a friend in the House, Frazzled.

"take back your party, so that it doesn't matter so much who wins the election"
"elections shouldn't matter as much as they do"

That whole "elections have consequences" meme was so two years ago.

Republicans don't have a budget plan, they have a torch, a soapbox, and a megaphone.

That's what America wants. It's easy to blame Poor people for the housing crisis and Hispanics for job losses that to say. WE all f'ed up.

If people wanted to actually work together we'd get.

Give up some entitlement and raise some taxes on the wealthy.

I've never seen a person president or otherwise bend over backwards for somebody who hated them so...well there was this one movie....

sexiest_hero wrote:I've never seen a person president or otherwise bend over backwards for somebody who hated them so...well there was this one movie....

You must not have been around from January '01 to '09.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'm not faulting him. If I were President and had control I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't have let the Creature (Pelosi) hijack my proposals. But then again, if I were eleceted all that hassle of voting would be a thing of the past anyway. Just do what I say and everything will be all right.

Seems you've got a friend in the House, Frazzled.

"take back your party, so that it doesn't matter so much who wins the election"
"elections shouldn't matter as much as they do"

That whole "elections have consequences" meme was so two years ago.

Pelosi, Obama really should have sent Hillary to smark her around until she got in line. He blew his presidency letting her craft anything but the lunch menu.