Do Progressives sound a lot like Fundies to you?

[dblack]

Hmmm..... I see. Seeking a health care system that works for all Americans at a considerably lower cost that the present one is hate speech? Seeking to have those who are fortunate enough to have great wealth pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the middle class earner on the factory floor is hate speech?

Laughing at the pre-election predictions of all the 'Conservatives' on this board is hate speech? Naw, that is just good humour

How's that bolded part working out for you?

And what say we eliminate a TON of spending and LOWER taxes on the middle class? Most of what the Federal government is spending isn't even Constitutional, IF you read the damned thing!

Tell it to the Supreme Court. If you think Social Security or Medicare is unconstitutional, take it to the court. They are the final arbiters of constitutionality, not some former disc jockey turned political advocate.

The Court doesn't have our backs on this one. We'll need to find other means to hold government to its Constitutional limits.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

None of the media went to capture images of Bush in a halo

Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Is it just me, or do Obamabots revert directly to talks of Romney when they are called out for being hive minded drones?

Romney replaced George W. Bush as the fall guy for Democrat incompetence.

Romney may be the fall guy, but the reality is Obama is a mirror image of George Bush. Obama parrots Bush's Iraq timeline, Obama continues the implementation of the Patriot Act, GITMO is still open for business, Our troops are still dying in Afghanistan... The reality is that this is not Obama's second term so much as it is Bush's fourth term. The irony is that the very people who hated Bush for his policies elected Obama are getting the exact same thing.

Things like TARP and the Bailouts are still happening.

They're really not that different.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Obama is GWB on steroids and a bit dumber.

I think Obama is more intelligent, but Bush had more common sense. The biggest difference between the two come down to the folks around them. Bush's team around him were some of the most intelligent players in the game. I didn't think much of them as human beings, but you couldn't deny that Rove, Ashcroft, and Cheney were at the very top of the game in terms of what they did. I don't see anyone of that caliber around Obama.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

No one called Bush their "Lord and Savior"

Bush never claimed he would lower the seas

None of the media went to capture images of Bush in a halo

This deserves a bit more response. I agree, that a lot of the Far Left seems to be buying into the Obama Cult of Personality, but before you give the Far Right a pass, Conservatives used to flat out cheer or clap whenever Bush said something they absolutely knew would piss of a Liberal. That kind of crazy euphoria you see in Fundamentals was VERY present in the Bush years, it just had a slightly different trigger.

That pretty much sums up the only real difference I've ever seen between a dedicated Republican voter and a dedicated Democrat voter. The Democrat tends to rally around his candidate and defend him with almost fundamentalist glee. The Republican tends to rally around his candidate and happily join right in on beating the hell out of their political opponents.

The end result is the same. A group of folks that have turned off their brains and will go on the attack against people that agrees with them 90% of the time for being an enemy of America because of that one or two issues they disagree on.

 

[aaronleland]

Do you hear how shrill and defensive and downright ugly they get when we criticize their Lord and Savior Obama?

They claim that Jihadists killed our Ambassador and 3 others because they were enraged over a video criticizing their Lord and Savior, can they relate to that emotion over criticism, even if over a video?

Isn't there a dead horse near you to beat?

Frank managed to milk the death of a border patrol agent for months for political reasons. Imagine what he can do with the death of 4 people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you hear how shrill and defensive and downright ugly they get when we criticize their Lord and Savior Obama?

They claim that Jihadists killed our Ambassador and 3 others because they were enraged over a video criticizing their Lord and Savior, can they relate to that emotion over criticism, even if over a video?

Isn't there a dead horse near you to beat?

Frank managed to milk the death of a border patrol agent for months for political reasons. Imagine what he can do with the death of 4 people.

Had Obama armed the Benghazi Consulate like they were a violent Mexican drug gang, those 4 Americans might still be alive

 

[occupied]

No one called Bush their "Lord and Savior"

Bush never claimed he would lower the seas

None of the media went to capture images of Bush in a halo

This deserves a bit more response. I agree, that a lot of the Far Left seems to be buying into the Obama Cult of Personality, but before you give the Far Right a pass, Conservatives used to flat out cheer or clap whenever Bush said something they absolutely knew would piss of a Liberal. That kind of crazy euphoria you see in Fundamentals was VERY present in the Bush years, it just had a slightly different trigger.

That pretty much sums up the only real difference I've ever seen between a dedicated Republican voter and a dedicated Democrat voter. The Democrat tends to rally around his candidate and defend him with almost fundamentalist glee. The Republican tends to rally around his candidate and happily join right in on beating the hell out of their political opponents.

The end result is the same. A group of folks that have turned off their brains and will go on the attack against people that agrees with them 90% of the time for being an enemy of America because of that one or two issues they disagree on.

It's different, democrats mostly criticized Bush for his inept unilateral cowboy foreign policy, a warmonger, a big deficit spender, allowing himself to be subverted by Cheney, his stand on torture and Habias, his trickle down policies, etc. They had a lunatic fringe that claimed all kind of crazy shit but it never really became the central tone of the attacks.

Conservatives on the other hand allow their fringe fanatics to lead the charge so the criticism is almost entirely built around a fictional character that is a Communist, Marxist, fascist, Muslim, Kenyan, terrorist sympathizer, bent on the destruction of real Americans. This is what I defend against, there are a lot of fair criticisms of Obama, mostly concerning continuing Bush policies, but I hardly ever hear these.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No one called Bush their "Lord and Savior"

Bush never claimed he would lower the seas

None of the media went to capture images of Bush in a halo

This deserves a bit more response. I agree, that a lot of the Far Left seems to be buying into the Obama Cult of Personality, but before you give the Far Right a pass, Conservatives used to flat out cheer or clap whenever Bush said something they absolutely knew would piss of a Liberal. That kind of crazy euphoria you see in Fundamentals was VERY present in the Bush years, it just had a slightly different trigger.

That pretty much sums up the only real difference I've ever seen between a dedicated Republican voter and a dedicated Democrat voter. The Democrat tends to rally around his candidate and defend him with almost fundamentalist glee. The Republican tends to rally around his candidate and happily join right in on beating the hell out of their political opponents.

The end result is the same. A group of folks that have turned off their brains and will go on the attack against people that agrees with them 90% of the time for being an enemy of America because of that one or two issues they disagree on.

It's different, democrats mostly criticized Bush for his inept unilateral cowboy foreign policy, a warmonger, a big deficit spender, allowing himself to be subverted by Cheney, his stand on torture and Habias, his trickle down policies, etc. They had a lunatic fringe that claimed all kind of crazy shit but it never really became the central tone of the attacks.

Conservatives on the other hand allow their fringe fanatics to lead the charge so the criticism is almost entirely built around a fictional character that is a Communist, Marxist, fascist, Muslim, Kenyan, terrorist sympathizer, bent on the destruction of real Americans. This is what I defend against, there are a lot of fair criticisms of Obama, mostly concerning continuing Bush policies, but I hardly ever hear these.

But you don't criticize Obama for being the biggest deficit spender in human history because that's blasphemy, right?

 

[occupied]

This deserves a bit more response. I agree, that a lot of the Far Left seems to be buying into the Obama Cult of Personality, but before you give the Far Right a pass, Conservatives used to flat out cheer or clap whenever Bush said something they absolutely knew would piss of a Liberal. That kind of crazy euphoria you see in Fundamentals was VERY present in the Bush years, it just had a slightly different trigger.

That pretty much sums up the only real difference I've ever seen between a dedicated Republican voter and a dedicated Democrat voter. The Democrat tends to rally around his candidate and defend him with almost fundamentalist glee. The Republican tends to rally around his candidate and happily join right in on beating the hell out of their political opponents.

The end result is the same. A group of folks that have turned off their brains and will go on the attack against people that agrees with them 90% of the time for being an enemy of America because of that one or two issues they disagree on.

It's different, democrats mostly criticized Bush for his inept unilateral cowboy foreign policy, a warmonger, a big deficit spender, allowing himself to be subverted by Cheney, his stand on torture and Habias, his trickle down policies, etc. They had a lunatic fringe that claimed all kind of crazy shit but it never really became the central tone of the attacks.

Conservatives on the other hand allow their fringe fanatics to lead the charge so the criticism is almost entirely built around a fictional character that is a Communist, Marxist, fascist, Muslim, Kenyan, terrorist sympathizer, bent on the destruction of real Americans. This is what I defend against, there are a lot of fair criticisms of Obama, mostly concerning continuing Bush policies, but I hardly ever hear these.

But you don't criticize Obama for being the biggest deficit spender in human history because that's blasphemy, right?

Nope, because practically all of it is continuing spending that he has barely added to, if you have a problem with it, direct your griping to congress who has done practically nothing to address the problem, all he can do is sign what lands on his desk. Watch how they are even now fighting against the biggest deficit reduction plan since the end of WWII and despair.

 

[Nosmo King]

How's that bolded part working out for you?

And what say we eliminate a TON of spending and LOWER taxes on the middle class? Most of what the Federal government is spending isn't even Constitutional, IF you read the damned thing!

Tell it to the Supreme Court. If you think Social Security or Medicare is unconstitutional, take it to the court. They are the final arbiters of constitutionality, not some former disc jockey turned political advocate.

The Court doesn't have our backs on this one. We'll need to find other means to hold government to its Constitutional limits.

What part of the constitution do you want upheld? The part where you are right, or the part that cedes such decisions to the court?

Your interpretation of the constitution shows that there is little of that document you really hold inviolate.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Do you hear how shrill and defensive and downright ugly they get when we criticize their Lord and Savior Obama?

They claim that Jihadists killed our Ambassador and 3 others because they were enraged over a video criticizing their Lord and Savior, can they relate to that emotion over criticism, even if over a video?

 

[dblack]

Tell it to the Supreme Court. If you think Social Security or Medicare is unconstitutional, take it to the court. They are the final arbiters of constitutionality, not some former disc jockey turned political advocate.

The Court doesn't have our backs on this one. We'll need to find other means to hold government to its Constitutional limits.

What part of the constitution do you want upheld? The part where you are right, or the part that cedes such decisions to the court?

Your interpretation of the constitution shows that there is little of that document you really hold inviolate.

How so?

 

[Nosmo King]

The Court doesn't have our backs on this one. We'll need to find other means to hold government to its Constitutional limits.

What part of the constitution do you want upheld? The part where you are right, or the part that cedes such decisions to the court?

Your interpretation of the constitution shows that there is little of that document you really hold inviolate.

How so?

You seem to want your way in spite of the ruling of the Supreme Court! How twisted would you accept a constitution just to agree with your politics?

 

[Dreamy]

Help. Progressive? New name for liberal? Or are they different animals and if so how are they different.

 

[dblack]

What part of the constitution do you want upheld? The part where you are right, or the part that cedes such decisions to the court?

Your interpretation of the constitution shows that there is little of that document you really hold inviolate.

How so?

You seem to want your way in spite of the ruling of the Supreme Court! How twisted would you accept a constitution just to agree with your politics?

Heh.. Supreme Court justices aren't gods. And the process that puts them in place isn't perfect. We have every right, even a responsibility, to put the brakes on government when we believe it's reaching beyond it's Constitutional bounds, regardless of whether the Court agrees with us or not. It's up to we the people to keep control of our government, one way or another.

 

[Nosmo King]

How so?

You seem to want your way in spite of the ruling of the Supreme Court! How twisted would you accept a constitution just to agree with your politics?

Heh.. Supreme Court justices aren't gods. And the process that puts them in place isn't perfect. We have every right, even a responsibility, to put the brakes on government when we believe it's reaching beyond it's Constitutional bounds, regardless of whether the Court agrees with us or not. It's up to we the people to keep control of our government, one way or another.

You do that by voting. And this past election, the candidate who promised to repeal Romneyca er ah Obamacare lost. That means you must live with the consequences. That's how a democratically elected Republic works.

I didn't think invading Iraq and Afghanistan were good ideas. I didn't think coddling the rich with special tax rates and loopholes was a good idea. But those were the decisions the elected representatives voted for.

 

[dblack]

You seem to want your way in spite of the ruling of the Supreme Court! How twisted would you accept a constitution just to agree with your politics?

Heh.. Supreme Court justices aren't gods. And the process that puts them in place isn't perfect. We have every right, even a responsibility, to put the brakes on government when we believe it's reaching beyond it's Constitutional bounds, regardless of whether the Court agrees with us or not. It's up to we the people to keep control of our government, one way or another.

You do that by voting. And this past election, the candidate who promised to repeal Romneyca er ah Obamacare lost. That means you must live with the consequences. That's how a democratically elected Republic works.

Nah.. we can always fight for our rights, even if the majority disagrees with us. That's what Constitutional limits on government are all about. Majority rule isn't the final word.

I didn't think invading Iraq and Afghanistan were good ideas. I didn't think coddling the rich with special tax rates and loopholes was a good idea. But those were the decisions the elected representatives voted for.

I didn't like these things either. And my interpretation of the Constitution doesn't allow them. Care to reconsider?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's different, democrats mostly criticized Bush for his inept unilateral cowboy foreign policy, a warmonger, a big deficit spender, allowing himself to be subverted by Cheney, his stand on torture and Habias, his trickle down policies, etc. They had a lunatic fringe that claimed all kind of crazy shit but it never really became the central tone of the attacks.

Conservatives on the other hand allow their fringe fanatics to lead the charge so the criticism is almost entirely built around a fictional character that is a Communist, Marxist, fascist, Muslim, Kenyan, terrorist sympathizer, bent on the destruction of real Americans. This is what I defend against, there are a lot of fair criticisms of Obama, mostly concerning continuing Bush policies, but I hardly ever hear these.

But you don't criticize Obama for being the biggest deficit spender in human history because that's blasphemy, right?

Nope, because practically all of it is continuing spending that he has barely added to, if you have a problem with it, direct your griping to congress who has done practically nothing to address the problem, all he can do is sign what lands on his desk. Watch how they are even now fighting against the biggest deficit reduction plan since the end of WWII and despair.

Yeah if you don't count TARP or the Failed Stimulus and the automatic increase under the Continuing Resolutions because Democrats don't need to pass no stinking budget, you'd be right.

 

[Nosmo King]

Heh.. Supreme Court justices aren't gods. And the process that puts them in place isn't perfect. We have every right, even a responsibility, to put the brakes on government when we believe it's reaching beyond it's Constitutional bounds, regardless of whether the Court agrees with us or not. It's up to we the people to keep control of our government, one way or another.

You do that by voting. And this past election, the candidate who promised to repeal Romneyca er ah Obamacare lost. That means you must live with the consequences. That's how a democratically elected Republic works.

Nah.. we can always fight for our rights, even if the majority disagrees with us. That's what Constitutional limits on government are all about. Majority rule isn't the final word.

I didn't think invading Iraq and Afghanistan were good ideas. I didn't think coddling the rich with special tax rates and loopholes was a good idea. But those were the decisions the elected representatives voted for.

I didn't like these things either. And my interpretation of the Constitution doesn't allow them. Care to reconsider?

What do you mean by 'fight(ing) for your rights"? Open revolution? Armed resistance? Secession?

So I ask again, how twisted would you accept the constitution before you get what you want? If the majority doesn't want what you want, if you're not willing to abide by rulings of the Supreme Court, why are you concerned at all about the constitution?