Has Obama just snatched defeat from victory?

[Freewill]

I think your subject line says it all. It isn't about doing what is right for the country it is about winning. That pretty much is the story of Obama's life. No real accomplishments other then winning elections.

 

[Sallow]

What do we have here, a zombie coming out of his comma? You just now figuring out Maobama is not a strong leader who has surrounded himself by a bunch of incompetents and academics. Could you really have expected less from an incompetent academic, the old saying that "people that can do and people that can't teach", became an old saying by being true. I just hope the country survives the idiot.

No. I've said all along that Obama has some serious limitations at leadership. I've said that since he failed to offer up his version of a healthcare reform bill and basically wasn't involved in crafting it. At one point, I even went so far as to tell my friends I wouldn't vote for him again because of his weak leadership. Of course, that was before the GOP offered up their Clown Car Cavalcade of Candidates and I had to reconsider.

What you have here, and probably have difficulty understanding, is a voter who keeps up, who studies, who understands the political system and how it works. What you DON'T have is a closed-minded ideologue who sees and hears only what he wants to hear.

The only ideologies I subscribe to are the Constitution and good government.

Yet you admittedly voted twice for an individual who plainly stated his contempt for the Constitution. I find that perplexing.

Bullshit.

 

[Sallow]

I think your subject line says it all. It isn't about doing what is right for the country it is about winning. That pretty much is the story of Obama's life. No real accomplishments other then winning elections.

We New Yorkers, beg to differ.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_56ox_Zw9w]Time Square party for Osama Bin Laden death - New York 10 - YouTube[/ame]



Were there any other parties in the country?

Just wondering.

 

[Freewill]

I think your subject line says it all. It isn't about doing what is right for the country it is about winning. That pretty much is the story of Obama's life. No real accomplishments other then winning elections.

We New Yorkers, beg to differ.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_56ox_Zw9w]Time Square party for Osama Bin Laden death - New York 10 - YouTube[/ame]



Were there any other parties in the country?

Just wondering.

Keep spreading the culture of death.

 

[Oldguy]

(sigh) It's SO hard to carry on a conversation about politics on the political boards. Nobody seems to have a clue about the subject. (sigh)

 

[Freewill]

(sigh) It's SO hard to carry on a conversation about politics on the political boards. Nobody seems to have a clue about the subject. (sigh)

What is it you want to discuss? YOU said that maybe Obama gave the GOP a victory. YOU are making the statement that it is Obama who is the only side that can win and that be a victory. Obviously to you if the GOP "wins" that is a loss for the Obama side.

So what is your answer? Which side do you think should win? Do you really believe that the GOP is doing nothing but obstructing? Why would they do that the election was already stolen.

 

[Sallow]

I think your subject line says it all. It isn't about doing what is right for the country it is about winning. That pretty much is the story of Obama's life. No real accomplishments other then winning elections.

We New Yorkers, beg to differ.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_56ox_Zw9w]Time Square party for Osama Bin Laden death - New York 10 - YouTube[/ame]



Were there any other parties in the country?

Just wondering.

Keep spreading the culture of death.

No seriously ace.

Were they any other parties?

We were celebrating the death of a man that put into action an attack against our city that killed 3 thousand new yorkers.

Thats what should have happened 10 years before.

And you can stow your "culture of death" thing after the invasion, destruction and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The mission was pretty clear. And it wasn't to conquer other people.

It was to clear out a band of radical nut cases that attacked our country.

 

[Sallow]

(sigh) It's SO hard to carry on a conversation about politics on the political boards. Nobody seems to have a clue about the subject. (sigh)

I have a pretty good clue about it.

I heard almost the same exact thing about Clinton.

Never mind that the people in the opposition party were pretty radical as well. Gingrich closed down government, twice..over bullshit.

Then, they impeached Clinton..over again, bullshit.

Now?

People are fondly remembering the good ol' days..when government "worked".

One side of it "worked'. There was no "compromise" back then either.

 

[WillowTree]

Yet you admittedly voted twice for an individual who plainly stated his contempt for the Constitution. I find that perplexing.

See? This is the kind of excited bullshit the right practices which irritates the hell out of me. He did not and has not done any such a thing to anybody but the troglodyte patsies who soak up the GOP rumor machine.

If the GOP ever wants my vote again, they'll have to first acknowledge that Barack Obama is legitimately the President of the United States, elected freely and openly by The People and not some conspiratorial, illegitimate usurper.

To absolutely refuse to accept the Will of The People puts the GOP in the position of having contempt for the Constitution, not Barack Obama.

You're a dumb assed charlie crist type, why would they want your vote, you voted for a 20 trillion dollar debt, open and freely and stupidly.

 

[Bfgrn]

The President and his advisors may have just made a major mistake in the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling negotiations. In fact, they may have just saved the Republican's bacon.

Obama's "Plan B," the stripped down version he's pushing now, has nothing in it the GOP can't vote against. Oh, some wheeling and dealing might be done which allows them to kick the ball on into next year, but adding in his insistence upon passing some kind of gun legislation immediately has given the GOP leverage they didn't have earlier this week.

By making gun legislation a signature item, attaching his name to it and demanding it be done forthwith, he's handed the GOP a weapon they can beat him to death with. Resisting gun legislation is a no-brainer for the GOP and they lose nothing by refusing to even consider it. Not only that, but they can harvest enormous amounts of political hay because it seems to prove what the Nutter's have been saying all along: "Obama's coming to get your guns!"

Whether or not that's true, it DOES put the House into the position of basically saying, "You want a gun bill? Fine, we'll pass something...BUT you'd better back off on taxing the rich and you'd better offer up some serious budget cuts or your gun bill dies right here." They have nothing to lose and much to gain by holding that position.

Obama never has been a really strong leader and he's not always gotten good political advice from his inner circle. That seems to be the case now and he might have just punked his own hand.

Oh, I get it. The same old GOP...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

 

[The Infidel]

The President and his advisors may have just made a major mistake in the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling negotiations. In fact, they may have just saved the Republican's bacon.

Obama's "Plan B," the stripped down version he's pushing now, has nothing in it the GOP can't vote against. Oh, some wheeling and dealing might be done which allows them to kick the ball on into next year, but adding in his insistence upon passing some kind of gun legislation immediately has given the GOP leverage they didn't have earlier this week.

By making gun legislation a signature item, attaching his name to it and demanding it be done forthwith, he's handed the GOP a weapon they can beat him to death with. Resisting gun legislation is a no-brainer for the GOP and they lose nothing by refusing to even consider it. Not only that, but they can harvest enormous amounts of political hay because it seems to prove what the Nutter's have been saying all along: "Obama's coming to get your guns!"

Whether or not that's true, it DOES put the House into the position of basically saying, "You want a gun bill? Fine, we'll pass something...BUT you'd better back off on taxing the rich and you'd better offer up some serious budget cuts or your gun bill dies right here." They have nothing to lose and much to gain by holding that position.

Obama never has been a really strong leader and he's not always gotten good political advice from his inner circle. That seems to be the case now and he might have just punked his own hand.

What do we have here, a zombie coming out of his comma? You just now figuring out Maobama is not a strong leader who has surrounded himself by a bunch of incompetents and academics. Could you really have expected less from an incompetent academic, the old saying that "people that can do and people that can't teach", became an old saying by being true. I just hope the country survives the idiot.

And yet somehow you nutbags couldn't stop him from getting 4 more years...

It's hard to beat Santa Obama Claus... He was voted in by a bunch of know nothing idiots.

 

[Oldguy]

Why would they do that the election was already stolen.

See? That's the problem with any political discussion today right there. Losing an election doesn't mean it was stolen. It simply means one side's ideas were rejected by The People.

So long as the losing side denies the legitimacy of the election, political "discourse" becomes nothing but an exercise in yelling and shouting that "MY side is right and YOUR side is wrong."

How in the hell are the nation's interests served by that?

 

[Oldguy]

(sigh) It's SO hard to carry on a conversation about politics on the political boards. Nobody seems to have a clue about the subject. (sigh)

I have a pretty good clue about it.

I heard almost the same exact thing about Clinton.

Never mind that the people in the opposition party were pretty radical as well. Gingrich closed down government, twice..over bullshit.

Then, they impeached Clinton..over again, bullshit.

Now?

People are fondly remembering the good ol' days..when government "worked".

One side of it "worked'. There was no "compromise" back then either.

And the Democrats used every trick in the book to obstruct George Bush too. Obstruction and denial of the right of The People to chose their own leaders has become the norm and nobody is the wiser.

Politics has never been a gentleman's game. There never was a time when the sides sat down and calmly worked out a reasonable compromise. It just doesn't work that way and never has. Hell, at one point we had a sitting member of Congress beat up with a cane on the Senate floor!

But, though compromise has always been messy and fraught with intrigue and violent rhetoric, there was always the possibility of an agreement because while positions were dearly held, they were not fortified and immune to assault. The only time my study of history reveals this kind of hatred of the opposition was in the decade preceding the Civil War.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why would they do that the election was already stolen.

See? That's the problem with any political discussion today right there. Losing an election doesn't mean it was stolen. It simply means one side's ideas were rejected by The People.

So long as the losing side denies the legitimacy of the election, political "discourse" becomes nothing but an exercise in yelling and shouting that "MY side is right and YOUR side is wrong."

How in the hell are the nation's interests served by that?

Not only did President Obama win the election by a comfortable margin and Democrats gained seats in both houses of Congress, the only reason Republicans kept control of the House is after the 2010 election Republicans gerrymandered districts borders. In the House of Representatives, Democrats received the majority of the popular vote.

For intelligent folks, it should be the canary in the mineshaft. But I see a lot of them still heading deeper down the mineshaft.

 

[Oldguy]

the only reason Republicans kept control of the House is after the 2010 election Republicans gerrymandered districts borders.

But, don't you see? You're doing the same thing as the right does: You're denying the legitimacy of the The People's will.

Sure they gerrymandered districts. Hell, gerrymandering is as old as the Republic and every party has done it when they got the chance.

They can redraw the lines all they like, but nobody follows voters into the polling booth and makes them vote one way or the other. They are still free to vote their will and they did so in those districts. That's the representatives those people wanted in Washington and pretending that isn't so leads to nothing but refuting the very foundation of the Constitution and more gridlock because it makes it possible to just ignore the desires of their constituents.

And, by the way, the total vote count for the House means diddly squat. Members aren't elected by the total vote, but by the votes cast in THEIR district and THAT'S who they represent.

 

[FJO]

What do we have here, a zombie coming out of his comma? You just now figuring out Maobama is not a strong leader who has surrounded himself by a bunch of incompetents and academics. Could you really have expected less from an incompetent academic, the old saying that "people that can do and people that can't teach", became an old saying by being true. I just hope the country survives the idiot.

No. I've said all along that Obama has some serious limitations at leadership. I've said that since he failed to offer up his version of a healthcare reform bill and basically wasn't involved in crafting it. At one point, I even went so far as to tell my friends I wouldn't vote for him again because of his weak leadership. Of course, that was before the GOP offered up their Clown Car Cavalcade of Candidates and I had to reconsider.

What you have here, and probably have difficulty understanding, is a voter who keeps up, who studies, who understands the political system and how it works. What you DON'T have is a closed-minded ideologue who sees and hears only what he wants to hear.

The only ideologies I subscribe to are the Constitution and good government.

The fact that you voted for Obama TWICE not only diminished, but eliminated all the respect I ever had for you.

 

[FJO]

i think your subject line says it all. It isn't about doing what is right for the country it is about winning. That pretty much is the story of obama's life. No real accomplishments other then winning elections.

exactly!

 

[Ernie S.]

No. I've said all along that Obama has some serious limitations at leadership. I've said that since he failed to offer up his version of a healthcare reform bill and basically wasn't involved in crafting it. At one point, I even went so far as to tell my friends I wouldn't vote for him again because of his weak leadership. Of course, that was before the GOP offered up their Clown Car Cavalcade of Candidates and I had to reconsider.

What you have here, and probably have difficulty understanding, is a voter who keeps up, who studies, who understands the political system and how it works. What you DON'T have is a closed-minded ideologue who sees and hears only what he wants to hear.

The only ideologies I subscribe to are the Constitution and good government.

Yet you voted for obama twice? I'm calling bullshit on that.

I'm not a closed minded ideologue myself, but there are principles I absolutely refuse to compromise on.

Sorry. I just can't stand Mitt Romney and never could. He has ambitions he won't explain and I don't trust him. Never did. I've never trusted Santorum or Brownback either because of their gratuitous sucking up to the Evangelical's (who I also can't stand) or Newt Gingrich. Oddly, there was one GOP candidate I MIGHT have voted for before she proved herself to be really batshit crazy: Bachmann. At first glance, she seemed alright enough to vote for, but that false impression didn't last long.

And, by the way, I also have principles I won't compromise and one of them is that I will never again be fooled into voting for the Neo-Conservative American Fascist's. They conned me out of my vote in 1980,84,88,92,96 and 2000, but MY blinders come off in 2004.

A couple of more principles I won't compromise is my absolute dedication to truth and justice. All I've seen from the right since 2008 is a relentless campaign of lies and character assassination directed at the person of Barack Obama and that turns my stomach. If a party wants to win on it's merits, I'll consider it. If it wants to win by creating an aura of fear and distrust about the other side, they've lost my vote.

All things considered, Obama was the best choice for the country this year and still is, weaknesses not withstanding.

You are fucking deluded. You mention several rational people you wouldn't vote for and the one you did consider is bat shit crazy. I find it very telling that you fail to mention a single Liberal you wouldn't vote for.

Sounds to me like you got on the government teat around 2003 and have been voting to preserve your checks ever since.

 

[Bfgrn]

the only reason Republicans kept control of the House is after the 2010 election Republicans gerrymandered districts borders.

But, don't you see? You're doing the same thing as the right does: You're denying the legitimacy of the The People's will.

Sure they gerrymandered districts. Hell, gerrymandering is as old as the Republic and every party has done it when they got the chance.

They can redraw the lines all they like, but nobody follows voters into the polling booth and makes them vote one way or the other. They are still free to vote their will and they did so in those districts. That's the representatives those people wanted in Washington and pretending that isn't so leads to nothing but refuting the very foundation of the Constitution and more gridlock because it makes it possible to just ignore the desires of their constituents.

And, by the way, the total vote count for the House means diddly squat. Members aren't elected by the total vote, but by the votes cast in THEIR district and THAT'S who they represent.

What you say may be true, but you missed my point. Obama and the Democrats have more support than conservatives are willing to accept, or admit.

I hear a lot of them saying all the GOP has to do is more FARTHER to the right.

Good luck with that.

 

[Ernie S.]

The American people are the winners when both sides reach a compromise on taxes and other legislation.

That's the way our political system was designed to work.

True story............

Absolutely. There isn't any question about that except in the minds of the selfish, knuckle-dragging cry babies on both sides who want THEIR way and screw everybody else.

That's patently wrong! One goal of the left, for example is disarming the citizens. Compromise to them, is banning certain classes of weapons and their magazine capacity. The rhetoric used is "What are you afraid of that you need 30 round clips?" or "Do you plan on overthrowing the government and returning blacks to slavery"?
The problem is, this would only serve to make Libs feel better about themselves. It wouldn't do crap about mass shootings. A year or 2 down the road, when a school is shot up by someone with a revolver, they will make themselves feel better by banning all handguns. A few years later, instead of banning all private ownership of firearms, they will offer to compromise on maybe shotguns, or limiting caliber.
They KNOW that passing feel good laws doesn't help, but eventually, they achieve their goal and criminals now are the only people armed and decent people are at the mercy of government intent on stripping our next "inalienable right".