Nope, that only proves we give the vote to people who shouldn’t have it…
Not to worry, voting Obama won’t be something the “cool kids” will be doing in 2012.
Meanwhile today the Bamster was out there comparing the budget process to his kid’s homework. I’m all for letting him be a full time parent at this point, it seems to be the only thing he’s good at.
.
Of course you don’t. So don’t be surprised when ultra-conservatives win.
.
Yes, how dare he support his president in a time of war…
Funny, didn’t that used to be expected of loyal Americans?
.
A president hasn’t died in office in nearly 50 years. That dog won’t hunt.
You have a valid point, any GOP candidate was going to have a tough road to hoe at that point.
But, yeah, I consider EXPERIENCE to be important. Obama doesn’t have all that much. His jobs were “community rabble rouser”, “State Legislative goofball” and “Absentee Senator”. That’s not nearly as impressive as “War Hero”, “Commanding Officer” and “Senate Elder Statesman”.
(Was there a slam on GHW Bush coming. It looke like you were going to start one? Actually, that guy had a pretty good presidency. Won a Cold War, a Hot War and set down the path for a recovery which was well underway when he lost.)
Again, guy, I’m still trying to figure out what McCain did that offends you guys so. McCain’s position (unlike Humphrey’s) was pretty consistant. He stuck by his vote when the war was popular, he stuck by it when it was unpopular. He pressured Bush to change strategy from what he was doing to the Surge, which brought it to a respectable conclusion. He stuck by Campaign Finance Reform, even though that was a terrible idea and with the Citizen United decision, things are arguably worse. the only area where you could accuse him of waffling was on immigration reform, and he didn’t by much.
I don’t think there was a soul on the planet who thought Bush was moderate in 2000. And let’s not forget, he lost the popular vote in 2000, and did VASTLY better in 2004 when he was an unvarnished conservative.
Actually, guy, if unemployment remains where it is, Obama is toast.
As far as the country being “not conservative”, how is it then that Democrats never call themselves “liberal”, but Republicans always want to call themselves some flavor of “Conservative”. Seems to me that if anything, Liberal has become the dirty word in American politics.
You see, my problem is, I have little use for social conservatives and not much use for economic conservatives. I remain a security conservative, without a doubt.
I would like to see a sensible republican moderate get in there, and give us a real choice. But honestly, if things go the way they are, we can pretty much look at “President Bachmann” in our future, which is kind of depressing.
Bo-bo, you wouldn’t know a “real” job if it bit you in the butt, judging by how much free time you seem to have to post here and God knows were else.
My work keeps my plant running efficiently and makes it competitive with Asian slave labor plants, which is not easy.
But you see, that’s the REAL economy, where people make stuff and do things, not the “government” economy where you pay people to breed and vote Democratic.
Nope, I went to a PRIVATE CATHOLIC SCHOOL. The whole notion that government should do education is kind of silly.
.
No, it means it’s a job where you only work 9 months a year,
Incidently, my late mother was a teacher, and I have nothing but respect for the good ones. but the good ones aren’t doing it for a $55,000 a year salary and a lifetime pension, moving the product from one grade to another.
The problem is, the union makes it IMPOSSIBLE to fire the bad ones. Even the ones who molest kids get a union rep backing them the whole way. So we have stuff like the Rubber Rooms in New York City where teachers are paid to sit around and do nothing- full salary - for years.
.
no, you are one of these sobby libs who thinks that if something fails repeatedly, it should be defended.
The point of the matter is, if there were line downs because I didn’t get MATERIAL (not numbers) to the line when it was supposed to be there, I wouldn’t have a job very long.
But your typical NEA public school teacher gives little Johnny a diploma he can’t read, and he calls it a day.
But let’s keep in mind the important thing, for the DNC, the Teacher Unions are better than an ATM.
Hey, I’d happily support the president in wartime, if he could tell me what it was he was actually trying to accomplish. Or actually got authorization from Congress to go to war.
“oooh, let’s hold NATO’s coat while they bomb Khadafy… Ummm, wait, NATO is out of missiles. But keep giving me more time.”
Personally, I’d be very happy if Khadafy cashed in on his 76 Virgins Policy at the end of an American Missile. But make the case that is what we should be trying to do here.
My thing is, I’m cyncical of BOTH parties. Both parties have let our manufacturing get away and turned us into a third world country.
The Republicans have done this through
Awful trade treaties.
Awful Tax policy
The Democrats have done this through-
Awful environmental regs
Awful Education standards
Supporting union thuggery
And then there is the bi-partisan stupidity, like not enforcing immigration laws. (Democrats want voters and dependents, Republicans want cheap labor. )
Ah, I see. You believe in a selective absolute. One that allows you make rules and definitions and then ignore them if they inconvenience you or you don’t like or agree with them, but doesn’t allow others the same leeway.
One that also allows you to forget that we were at war before we sent troops to Libya and are still actively engaged in those wars.
Face it, by your own definition, you’re a traitor.
Clearly, you don’t really think that, or you wouldn’t be talking about it being a bad idea to be in Libya. Or if you do really think debate should end, you should have kept your mouth shut, because you are now a traitor, by your own definition of the word.
Do you still think traitors deserve the penalty you proscribed?
These are not descriptions. They are Republican talking points. By definition, all talking points are lies. Repeating a talking point is not analysis, it is ideology.
Don’t presume to put words in my mouth. I said exactly what I meant. Bush 41 had the best resume, but nobody in either party considers him to be the best president of the century, not even close. He was nowhere near the worst, either. He lost because he was foreordained to lose. It was obvious to every political observer in 1988 that whoever won the election would be tarred with the collapse of the economy because of Reagan’s policies. Democrats seriously faced the reality that if they won in 1988, that president would serve one term and the party might be out of power for another 20 years. Instead, they got “lucky” with a bad candidate, and Clinton returned the nation to the normal two-term cycle that has been operating since Truman except for Reagan’s unusual popularity. Which means that 2016 is the year to look to break the cycle. As I’ve said, short of disaster Obama will win against any candidate the Republicans have put up so far.
The notion that any objective analysis is automatically liberal if conservatives are not praised is another talking point. Your constant barrage of talking points and lack of analysis is what’s causing the pushback here. Not to mention the insults. I’m not one of “you guys” except to the extent that I’m trying to be objective.
We appear to be recalling different histories. In my world, McCain was accused loudly and daily of abandoning his past and Bush was consistently touted as a moderate. You could look it up.
He doesn’t? At this point he’s going to run with four very recent years of being POTUS against someone with 0 years of being POTUS. By your reasoning, you’re obliged very sadly and very unwillingly to support him for re-election.
What? Oh, experience is only very important when it belongs to a Republican? On a Democrat, it’s a DISqualification. Now I understand.
Funnily enough so did I, run by Irish priests out in the Warwickshire countryside. Of course how a school is funded has nothing to do with whether teaching is a “real job” or not. Not that you have said what you think a “real job” is. I think I’ve already pointed that out once or twice but somehow you seemed to have missed it.
False. My Mother and Sister were both teachers. There’s a metric arseload of planning that goes on during the “holidays”. Also, teachers, in my experience, are far more likely to work at home. Marking/correcting homework and exams, for example.
No you don’t. You’ve dismissed the profession as not a “real job”. Shit, you’re not “flip flopping” are you?
Utter bullshit. Just Google “US teacher fired” if you want counterexamples to your ridiculous viewpoint.
No I just think teaching is a very important and respectable job, far closer to being a “real job” than most of us around here do. Including you.
Your argument earlier is that 20% of kids can’t read their diploma (not that you offered a cite for that when asked). If so, basic Mathematics will tell you that giving “little Johnny a diploma he can’t read” is pretty far from being “typical”. But don’t let your clear and quite comical bias get in the way of a rant.
Oh one other thing. I’m not a “lib”. My political views and leanings are pretty much non-existent in American politics.
Now, I know this goes right over your head, but Obama is without a doubt in violation of the War Powers Act right now.
In short, if the system worked the way it’s supposed to work, we’d be drafting articles of impeachment.
And frankly, I’ve really never said anything about the wars one way or the other, really. I find it amusing that all the aspects of the wars “The One” railed about when he was pretending to be a Senator he’s all for now that he’s pretending to be a President. Heck, he hasn’t even closed Gitmo. So I’m glad to see he’s come around.
But like I said, as soon as he comes up with a coherent policy, I’ll be the first to support it.
He’s going to run on the worst unemployment since the Great Depression, defaulting on our obligations, and starting a third war when he promised to end the other two. Good luck with that. Really.
And incidently, I haven’t decided who I’m voting for yet. If it’s Romney vs. Obama, I might vote for Obama if I can’t find a credible third party candidate to support.
But if the election were PURELY a referendum on Obama’s leadership, he’d lose. You know it, I know it. Your best hope is that the GOP nominates someone beyond the pale and people can ignore the fact they are a lot worse off than they were when he took office.
Nope, I live in IL, that’s probably a pretty accurate description. Actually the man was such a NON-ENTITY in the legistlature that most of us never heard of him before he ran for Senate. (And understandable, given the guy spent a lot of time voting “Present”. Well, at least we know he was present.) The ironic thing is that if it weren’t for the Mainstream Media digging through the dirty laundry of Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, one of those guys would have the job now and actually be doing it.
Sure you are. I just ask the question again. After a decade of being barraged by what a GREAT GUY John McCain was, and how he was wonderful, and John Kerry even wanted the guy as a running mate in 2004, he suddenly became the anti-Christ when he won the nomination. (This again, is after years of you guys telling us how WONDERFUL the GOP would be if they stop nominating these bible thumper conservatives and nominated someone like John McCain.)
Oh. That’s right. Palin. Except she had a pretty decent reputation before she was on the ticket, too.
Hey, I know a lot of people who supported Obama in 2008 who won’t admit it now. I’m usually not enough of a jerk to needle them every time he screws up…
Uh, yes. We’ve been at war in Afghanistan for a few years now. And yet, here you are, protesting loudly against the President; posting rhetoric for all the world to see.
No according to you, if the system worked, it would be working just like it is now, since you believe:
So now are you going to argue against yourself? Either the WPA is unconstitutional, and so nobody should give a shit, or it’s proper and Pres. Obama should be impeached. Which do you really believe? Whichever you believe, why are you lying about your position in at least one instance?
So now it’s okay to speak out against the President as long as he doesn’t have what you consider a “coherent policy”? But it wasn’t okay for anyone else to speak out about, say, the Vietnam War, if they didn’t think there was a coherent policy?
What about during the recent Iraq War? If I didn’t think there was a “coherent policy”, was it okay for me to protest?
Hey, Bo-bo, you seem to fail to understand that disagreeing with a president’s economic policies is not the same as stabbing our troops in the back in a time of war. If a wartime president’s leadership isn’t up to snuff, we SHOULD vote him out and get someone in who will win it. (Kind of what we did in 1968, except Dems couldn’t abide the Peace Nixon won, and stabbed our allies in the back.)
The troops will do their job regardless of how inept Obama is.
Oh, I do love how you take my observation that the WPA is unconstitutional out of context without including my follow up statement that nearly every president has violated it since it was invoked.
But like I said, I don’t have an opinion of the war itself. It’ll probably be another failure, becuase everything this guy does smells of fail.
I guess he can compare it to his kid’s homework again. That was a nice touch.
You know, Bo, there was a certain point when I stopped defending Bush. Just can’t make excuses after a certain point. But you keep right on…
Who is it that you think backstabbed our troops in a time of war?
By “you guys” you mean the filthy socialist libruls here, right? The democrats? Because they have respect for a person on the other side personally, and would prefer that he lead over less respectable people from his side, they’re supposed to vote for him instead of their own ideological compatriots? And if not they’re hypocrites?
I… uh… do… you … you don’t think it’s kind of important for someone who’s second in line for command of the most powerful country in the world not to be fucking retarded and crazy?
So if a solid democrat, someone who supports the democratic platforms and likes a particular set of democratic candidates - if they said “wow, I wish the Republican party could at least nominate someone I could respect, who I think would do their best to make the country a better place, instead of a nutjob”, this person is a hypocrite unless they vote for that republican? Vote for them over their own party who they like just as well or better and actually share ideology with?
What does “supporting” entail? Agreeing with every position they have? Reversing your own personal convictions of what you think is right and best and copy theirs precisely? Are there no grounds on which reasonable people can disagree on issues? If your view deviates at all from the president’s, you’re traitorous?
And… really, you guys are the biggest fucking bunch of hypocrites. “Support your president in time of war.. if he’s a republican!” - we still have troops in Iraq and active combat troops in Afghanistan. Why aren’t you supporting the president?
So let me get this straight. Your position isn’t that public education is good for society and that we should improve it. Nor is your position that we should keep public schools for those who need them, but encourage and transition to private education where possible. Nor is it even your position that you don’t personally support public education, but that reasonable people can disagree on the issue. No, your position is that public education - something which clearly has a pretty good track record and pretty much the entire world has agreed on - is “silly”, an idea not even worthy of contemplation.
And you call yourself a moderate. Who are the solid or extremist republicans? Do they think we should turn public schools into death camps for anyone who dares attend them?
I don’t think your description is accurate. Even when McCain was in mid-campaign, people would praise his service for the country and stuff. People certainly did not call him pure evil, nothing on par with the whole Obama/Muslim/Antichrist/Communist thing.
Even so - the guy went back on most of what made people respect him, so it’s not at all inconsistent that their respect would diminish. I mean, for fucks sake, the guy bowed down to his party on the issue of torture. An issue which is very near to his very essence, an issue on which he was understandably outspoken, and he decided he could compromise that principle. That would be soul-crushing for any man of principle to whore himself out on. What kind of man could he be if he’s willing to do that?
Did she by election day, or does all the stuff we learned about her, and how she acted and what she said and thought not count?
Kerry. Most of the anti-war types during Vietnam who devloped amnesia when pictures of the skulls in the killing fields started coming back.
I was trying to avoid that kind of obscenity, but it’s sort of disingenuous, doncha think? Palin is someone who has been pretty successful compared to 99% of the population. Now, frankly, I don’t think she has the skills to be president. But the hateful stuff that comes out of people’s pie holes about her are a bit over the top.
Again, I’m waiting for the guy to give me a coherent explanation of what he is trying to accomplish over there. :smack: I mean are we supporting democracy? That’s kind of hard when the person who is in charge stole the last election. Are we trying to defeat the Taliban or negotiate with them? Are we going to win it or withdraw as soon as we possibly can? I’d be happy to support a policy as soon as there is one that doesn’t change next week.
The one thing I wouldn’t do is run around blaming the troops and claiming they were committing attrocities on hearsay, which is what John Kerry did in 1971.
Nice Hyperbole, there, guy. No, Public Education is actually a pretty terrible idea for a lot of reasons. I’ll give a few here.
Some people just can’t be educated, no matter how much you try. But they’ll waste a lot of your time while you attempt to do it. Their parents don’t care, because they were the same kind of slug when they were in school.
When the employees set the standards, the standards are going to drop. But that is exactly what happens when the Teachers Unions decide that we aren’t going to ever fire anyone, and if the kids can’t meet the standards, we lower the standards.
When you have a monopoly, there’s no reason to improve. Phone service stayed pretty much the same until the government finally broke up AT&T. Now look at all the inovation we’ve got.
Now School Choice is a great idea, because it makes the education a true partnership. Parents find a school that fits their child best, and the schools pick who they can and can’t work with. It’s matching up consumer and provider.
So you are going to hold Obama accountable for not closing Gitmo, then?
The problem with the enhanced interrogation technique issue that it’s NOT an easy question. Would you let people die rather than torture terrorists?
It’s not a question with a pat answer. Comparing waterboarding a monster like Khalid Mohammed with what was done to McCain in a POW camp is disingenous.
I don’t know, what did we learn? Now, there are some things she’s done that bother me, like her attempts to get her brother in law fired. yeah, that was bad. But the guy was slapping around her sister. If it were my sister, they’d never find the body.
Except that what you’re doing is criticizing his leadership of the war, in time of war, which is what you called traitorous activity when done by others.
For instance, in your next sentence you wrote:
Which, by your own definition, is traitorous speech.
So you don’t have an opinion of it, except that you have the opinion it’ll probably be a failure. :rolleyes: