The coming Barack Hussein Obama thugocracy

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

.... The universal healthcare system is a complete coverup for Obama's missing birth certificate! By insisting on electronic records, the administration will be able to force every hospital to digitize their documentation and ELIMINATE THE PAPER TRAIL! Once digitized into a database, Obama's Hawaiian certificate will of course appear along with everyone else's! And don't think this stops with Obama... the long chain of Manchurian candidates has only begun because the electronic system will allow them to fabricate new "natural born citizens" every election cycle!!!

this makes sense...at least as much sense as the official reasoning.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

parsing sentences does not convey the reality of what someone says, they lose the context. it is typically done to alter people's remarks in a way that suits the person doing the editing.



that's from 2003 I believe....and in 2008, he said this:

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.

"Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”

“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

the point is look at the proposal, look at the bill, and make critical remarks about that specific program. do not attempt to make claims about the program that are not accurate as to what the program itself says.

those who are trying to attack the program are doing so not in that manner, but rather by suggesting that there is some conspiracy to do a bait and switch.

stay with the facts, stay with what the program itself says, not demonizing the person who is proposing the program or trying thru innuendo to make the program out to be something it isn't.

it isn't a single payer system, it does not take over the role of private insurance. period.

Mavdog,

You typically are a classy voice, although with an opposing view as mine. I respect that view, but to ignore video proof of what Obama is doing is at the least disappointing. Not that you'd care...but I just suppose I anticipated better from you.

My distaste for Obama is very clear, and its all rooted in the Democrat/Liberal ideology that is being pushed. Such is the case and the consequences of America getting what it voted for...although I have and had serious reservations about McCain...but that was the only opposition at the time.

Clearly we are seeing a serious divide amongst Americans and it appears as though depending on who's elected and who has the power of the Congress, we will either hate or love our elected officials.

It's a shame that we no longer see politicians whe aspire to Serve, but rather we are seeing career lawyers who appear to be more into politics to further their own cause.

At this point, I would be in favor of the following:

Term limits of no more than 10 years on the National level, with an exception if any politicians move from Senate/House to the Presidency.

No benefits after leaving office, with exception of the security and certain support to Ex-Presidents.

Serious cuts in terms of benefits to members of congress.

Basically setting it up so that people who serve are doing so because they want to serve the people, not because of any power, financial or other gains one can have from being a politician.

I'ld also put a 30 year limit on receiving "Gifts", "Bonuses" or other compensation from private companies who had ties/connections to issues that you had influence or decision making capability while in office.

I'm sure there are other items we can put in place to restrict the special benefits that these politicians gain from their time in office.

This plays into the big Defense contracts that some believe benefited Dick Cheney, or the various Housing loans that benefited Franks and others currently in office...just to site 2 examples.

I would also establish rules that would restrict funds to -0- for organizations that officials were a part of prior to getting into office, essentially the example here is the money going to ACORN. Under my plan, once Obama became and was elected into political office, then no government funds would be allowed to go to that organization.

As it stands today, there are far too many smoking guns regarding both Republicans and Democrats and the blur between private sector and public sector is darker than shark infested waters. The perceptions of our political officials is the worst that it has ever been and it is time that they be held to a squeaky clean standard.

It's a sad day in our democracy, that the general feeling in America is that we can't trust our elected officials, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on.

Back to the topic discussed...we see that Obama and those campaigning on the Left's behalf in regards to the Health Coverage initiative have a clear agenda. They have even spelled out how they will get to the final goal, giving themselves a target of 15-20 years to reach it.

It's like the old parable of the Frog in the Pot of cold water...the frog swims and is happy as can be...then someone turns the burner on...but the frog is completely naive and thinks the water is safe. Time elapses and the water gradually gets hotter and hotter, to the point of boiling and killing the frog before he realizes he's in danger. The key is that the frong should never have gotten into the pot of water to begin with.

Folks, we should not get into this Healthcare bill to begin with...actually we are perhaps already too deep into Liberalism and now the heat is nearing the boiling point. But we are not frogs, we are people who have free thought, free speech and free will. We can make a difference and bring solutions to America that protect the very freedoms passed on from our founding fathers. It is up to us to stop and change this Liberalism/Socialism that is slowly deteriating the principles of this great land.

So be classy, continue to debate, continue to voice your views, and be prepared to vote for solutions for a free Ameria in 2010.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the point is look at the proposal, look at the bill, and make critical remarks about that specific program. do not attempt to make claims about the program that are not accurate as to what the program itself says.

those who are trying to attack the program are doing so not in that manner, but rather by suggesting that there is some conspiracy to do a bait and switch.

Well, the whole point of using Barney Frank's answer was to show it IS NOT innuendo and unsubstantiated... Mr. Frank was speaking to allay fears that the government was abandoning a single-payer system. After reading the bill, he assured the questioner that this program is the best way to get a single-payer system because the votes aren't there to get it directly.

As to Obama's answer in 2008 and the context, Hillary was slamming him in an ad by juxtaposing his 2003 statements with his incompatible answers during a primary debate. Obama dodges the incompatibility by listing weird excuses ("couldn't hear" and "clip too short"). His 2003 position is that even in our current system with its current legacy, single payer can still be achieved if they can take back (i) the White House, (ii) the Senate, and (iii) the House. (Check, check, and check.) It's not a hypothetical "if we were to start from scratch in a vacuum." But because he wanted to distinguish from Hillary (and she caught him in an inconsistency), he had to take the nuanced position in 2008 that his 2003 comments were only for a theoretical, make-believe setting.

Yes, the chopping of the videos is less than ideal, but the spirit of the comments are still there. If these clips aren't germane to the discussion, not much will be.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

this makes sense...at least as much sense as the official reasoning.

I personally liked 4 the best because I thought of sike while I typed it. (Hey-oh!)

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

This was just stupid. It's like aliens swooped down and replaced all the people who ran one of smartest campaigns in history with wonks. I don't understand the need to continually make everything an us against them that forces a winner and loser. No President in my lifetime, well maybe Nixon, has so consistently concerned themselves with what was going on in the media.
Republican Mobs? Astro turfing? WTF? Why would you want to imply some of the folks are your enemy?

People are pissed. You might think their reasons aren't valid and they dislike you personally, but I'm not seeing the wisdom in these "We won, sore losers and idiots" tactics.

Completely agree. My theory is that they genuinely believe America is now predominantly anti-Republican and they'll have a permanent majority. Thus, in casting every dissent as part of the Bush/Limbaugh/Republican camp, they hope to marginalize opposing views without even having to address the merits.

I believe they simply deployed it way too early. They should have gone with more moderate policies and stances on everything for at least a term, thus building incredible good will with the independents and moderates... it would have cemented in the public's mind a rock-solid contrast of the demonized, crazy Bush with the savior, reasonable Obama. With patience and discipline, they could have marginalized the Republican brand for generations and then done whatever they wanted.

But they went nuts like fat kids at a diet camp who are suddenly given keys to the candy store. Having gone so quickly in the opposite direction on so many fronts, the moderates are instead back to a "lesser of two evils" picture. That's square one in the political rat race.

I was younger at the time, so I didn't pay much attention to politics, but I think Clinton was solidly on this very path of building broad support. If he had only kept his peepee at home, things could have been very different.

Oh well, here's hoping for a viable third party!

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Oh well, here's hoping for a viable third party!

I'm eligible to run for President in 2016...

I promise free everything for everyone and we'll make Switzerland pick up the tab! (they're rich and they don't have a big enough army to tell us "no"...)

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

stay with the facts, stay with what the program itself says, not demonizing the person who is proposing the program or trying thru innuendo to make the program out to be something it isn't.

it isn't a single payer system, it does not take over the role of private insurance. period.

There is really no program, bill or legislation to analyze yet. That isn't going to happen until he is presented with one to sign. And had there been one, it's pretty hard to ignore Obama seems place a lot more emphasis on speed than people understanding what they are signing or the content being put out for scrutiny. It would have been signed yesterday. Maybe something similar to the general drop jaw amazement that AIG bonuses were in the stimulus bill could happen.

It's crafting rules that will significantly impact millions of people and the people they love, not selling timeshares or used cars. When you consider the Dems hold an overwhelming advantage in both Houses, it's not a tactic that's really gonna inspire trust.

Politicians won't achieve trust at that level. All they can do is not hand over something as easy as this to exploit.

Whatever the actual, practical value of this move to combat misinformation, it's amazing no one pointed out how it might play.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Well, the whole point of using Barney Frank's answer was to show it IS NOT innuendo and unsubstantiated... Mr. Frank was speaking to allay fears that the government was abandoning a single-payer system. After reading the bill, he assured the questioner that this program is the best way to get a single-payer system because the votes aren't there to get it directly.

yet barney frank isn't the author of the bill, nor is he a co-sponsor, he is not on either of the committees that are working on the bill.

tell me, where in the bill is there a reference to a single payer system, or any mechanism to establish a single payer system?

you won't be able to find anything about a single payer system because the bill establishes a multi payer system. it does not replace the existing providors, it suppliments the existing providors.

let's deal with the facts. the facts are the bill is not a single payer system.

As to Obama's answer in 2008 and the context, Hillary was slamming him in an ad by juxtaposing his 2003 statements with his incompatible answers during a primary debate. Obama dodges the incompatibility by listing weird excuses ("couldn't hear" and "clip too short"). His 2003 position is that even in our current system with its current legacy, single payer can still be achieved if they can take back (i) the White House, (ii) the Senate, and (iii) the House. (Check, check, and check.) It's not a hypothetical "if we were to start from scratch in a vacuum." But because he wanted to distinguish from Hillary (and she caught him in an inconsistency), he had to take the nuanced position in 2008 that his 2003 comments were only for a theoretical, make-believe setting.

Yes, the chopping of the videos is less than ideal, but the spirit of the comments are still there. If these clips aren't germane to the discussion, not much will be.

it's not only "less than ideal", it's not the issue.

the issue is what the bill says. the bill says keep the existing system and add a public source for the uninsured. it does not mandate a single payer system, and does not require the end of the private providors that currently insure millions of americans.

obama has been open and clear that if he were to begin a system he would choose a single payer program. he has also been very open and clear that he is a realist, the system exists already so it is not his choice on what system to have, he says live with what we have got a go forward with that structure.

that's the "spirit of the comments".

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

There is really no program, bill or legislation to analyze yet. That isn't going to happen until he is presented with one to sign. And had there been one, it's pretty hard to ignore Obama seems place a lot more emphasis on speed than people understanding what they are signing or the content being put out for scrutiny. It would have been signed yesterday. Maybe something similar to the general drop jaw amazement that AIG bonuses were in the stimulus bill could happen.

huh? you better tell the congressmen that voted H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 out of committee that there's "no program, bill or legislation to analyze yet".

[dude1394]

I'll send it as coming from mavie.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

There's nothing to debate on this subject -- of course the government does all kinds of crap to dissidents. There are ample examples of dissident groups that had just about as many undercover FBI agents as actual members. Very recently a member of some anarchist, SDS type of group outed an army mole in their ranks...I'm talking a few weeks ago.

Smear campaigns, punative IRS audits....common as dirt.

edit....

A point Noam Chomsky makes often (and I think it's an interesting and valid point, obviously) is that the Watergate break-in was a crime of a very, very common kind. Nixon's plumbers and others were doing this sort of thing regularly to all sorts of political groups....it only caused a stir when they did it to the dems.

Wonder what old Noam has to say about Barry's little red list. I haven't heard much from him lately.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Completely agree. My theory is that they genuinely believe America is now predominantly anti-Republican and they'll have a permanent majority. Thus, in casting every dissent as part of the Bush/Limbaugh/Republican camp, they hope to marginalize opposing views without even having to address the merits.

I believe they simply deployed it way too early. ........

I was younger at the time, so I didn't pay much attention to politics, but I think Clinton was solidly on this very path of building broad support. If he had only kept his peepee at home, things could have been very different.

Oh well, here's hoping for a viable third party!

Actually, Clinton's first term was a disaster. He also rammed spending through with zero Republicans voting for the bill. But Bush the Elder wasn't despised like W, or at least $39 and a webpage didn't make you a journalist. He lost both Houses and spent much of his reelection tour semi-apologizing and promising to do better. He was lucky the Repugs kept the string of running old, barely animated zombies for Prez with Bob Dole.

Newbies always blow it by not having people who understand how stuff works in the machine at a top level. Whatever you think of Rove and Cheney, they knew where the switches are located and W. enjoyed a really productive run with getting taxcuts and no child left behind, got our Spy plane folks out of China, with a small Dem majority in each House.

Clinton lost Congress over Hillary-care. They cared more about getting another term. Go figure.

I've never seen a whole group of people at the highest level of a Party be so condescending and dismissive of people they need.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

huh? you better tell the congressmen that voted H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 out of committee that there's "no program, bill or legislation to analyze yet".

Sure. Right after I read the Senate passed version. Yeah, you are technically correct, but practically off. Until it gets to open debate of the full House and amendments it's a framework. It wasn't debated because Pelosi wasn't confident it would pass in it's present form and it was going to damage the Dems to expose it widely before the Reps left for the break. If it had been tabled, it was as good as a loss.

Pelosi seems to agree with me it wasn't ready for prime time debate and needs work. Considering they can pass trillion dollar spending bills with zero support from the opposition and Obama was doing a full court press, it's a significant development of how close to finished it is.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yet barney frank isn't the author of the bill, nor is he a co-sponsor, he is not on either of the committees that are working on the bill.

tell me, where in the bill is there a reference to a single payer system, or any mechanism to establish a single payer system?

you won't be able to find anything about a single payer system because the bill establishes a multi payer system. it does not replace the existing providors, it suppliments the existing providors.

let's deal with the facts. the facts are the bill is not a single payer system.

I think you're missing Barney Frank's point. He's saying exactly this: there is no mention of 'single-payer system' because that will doom the legislation. Instead, by leaving that explicitly out of the legislation, they will have the best option of achieving it later on by what sounds like a bait-and-switch. He's selling it to pro-single-payer advocates as Step 1 to the master plan. Asking for the words "single-payer" as a conclusive test of Congress's intentions is entirely disingenuous.

I'd like to believe you that Mr. Frank is totally off his rocker and the only person in Congress who believes this. Really, I would. But I don't. I guess that means you'll continue to ignore it, and I will continue to hear it echo in my head like a bad song.

As for Obama's comments and his true intentions, I would also really like to believe you that his 2008-present comments in a hostile environment in which he is attacked by both Clinton and the Republicans from opposite sides is more indicative of his true intentions than his 2003 comments in a friendly environment while stumping for a friend, where no one attacks what he says and he can speak his mind. I think it would be significantly easier if he would have just said he changed his mind, or he's heard the will of the people and chosen to represent their wishes. But he insists on pitching the divergent statements as inherently consistent.

If you're right, I'll feel bad for having been so suspicious and contrarian, and if I'm right, you'll be shocked and appalled at the deception by all the Democrats. Cause the Democrats have enough control of Congress to pass whatever they want.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I've never seen a whole group of people at the highest level of a Party be so condescending and dismissive of people they need.

Really? You haven't noticed how the Republican elite feel about those that aren't god and guns and gays and unborn babies?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Really? You haven't noticed how the Republican elite feel about those that aren't god and guns and gays and unborn babies?

Haha, although I think aquaadverse's emphasis is that these guys seem to be taking it to all new levels.

We need to get UD a good party name and mascot. How about an octopus? The motto can be "Let's get kraken!"

[DirkFTW]

HAHAHA

There are two basic points about health-care reform that President Obama wants to convey. The first is that, as he put it in an ABC special in June, “the status quo is untenable.” Our health-care system is rife with “skewed incentives.” It gives us “a whole bunch of care” that “may not be making us healthier.” It generates too many specialists and not enough primary-care physicians. It is “bankrupting families,” “bankrupting businesses” and “bankrupting our government at the state and federal level. So we know things are going to have to change.”

Obama’s second major point is that–to quote from the same broadcast–”if you are happy with your plan and you are happy with your doctor, then we don’t want you to have to change … So what we’re saying is, If you are happy with your plan and your doctor, you stick with it.”

So the system is an unsustainable disaster, but you can keep your piece of it if you want. And the Democrats wonder why selling health-care reform to the public has been so hard?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...914973,00.html

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

We need to get UD a good party name and mascot. How about an octopus? The motto can be "Let's get kraken!"

I love the idea, but it's already being used:

[dude1394]

Funny..

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/...-faltering.php

The snitch on your neighbor scheme (flag@whitehouse.gov) has become the stuff of comedy in just one day. I self reported to the ObamaCare police and am receiving emails already from Democratic Congress members I have never heard from before. I wonder who else is getting the list?

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Really? You haven't noticed how the Republican elite feel about those that aren't god and guns and gays and unborn babies?

In spite of what you may be told, Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly aren't Republican elite, no matter what Carvell says. Most Republicans and Independents lean fiscal conservative and social moderates. We got the first day of deer season off from school, carried guns on the bus and Michigan isn't a Republican hot bed.

Well, I watched Obama on TV today telling people to shut up and get out of the way so he can clean up the "mess".

I saw Nancy Pelosi complaining about operatives, astroturfing and swastikas, seriously, even if you are stupid enough to think it should you say it?

I saw Harry Reid during his speech welcoming Al Franken make a comment about his Republican colleagues not taking Frankens arrival as an excuse to not govern, that they have will get every opportunity to stop being the "Party of No".

Feel free to find an example of Republicans holding the three most powerful political offices at same time doing something similar in a 30 day period. And over what?

( By the way, did you know Monica is now 36? Seems like only yesterday she was crawling on the carpet and putting things in her mouth. See? It doesn't have to get ugly.)

I think it's going to cost them. All the tea bagger stuff, having hordes of talking heads talking about Rush Limbaugh being the leader of the party when most Repugs don't listen to him. This President is mocking Fox News. They have a huge audience. Clinton wouldn't do it. Hell if Johnson was President he wouldn't do it.

There isn't a good reason to keep this in campaign mode. Most of the country is center, more or less. Name the last really liberal two term Dem President? Clinton scooted over, Obama is cutting off that possibility, or rather has already done so.

Exactly why is he telling a large group of people he doesn't consider their anger genuine and they are paid off shills? How is a Party that had one big victory and a relative one over an unpopular war and President so cocky?
You read and hear the Republican Party has been vanquished, no longer matters. Bad mistake, and for no real reason.

[chumdawg]

If Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly aren't Republican elite, I will eat my hat. There is a reason Fox News has such a huge audience, as you say. It ain't because those guys are fringe characters.

The reason the Republicans are where they are right now is that they are utterly devoid of leadership. An unpopular Obama does not, and cannot, change that.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

I think you're missing Barney Frank's point. He's saying exactly this: there is no mention of 'single-payer system' because that will doom the legislation. Instead, by leaving that explicitly out of the legislation, they will have the best option of achieving it later on by what sounds like a bait-and-switch. He's selling it to pro-single-payer advocates as Step 1 to the master plan. Asking for the words "single-payer" as a conclusive test of Congress's intentions is entirely disingenuous.

I'd like to believe you that Mr. Frank is totally off his rocker and the only person in Congress who believes this. Really, I would. But I don't. I guess that means you'll continue to ignore it, and I will continue to hear it echo in my head like a bad song.

As for Obama's comments and his true intentions, I would also really like to believe you that his 2008-present comments in a hostile environment in which he is attacked by both Clinton and the Republicans from opposite sides is more indicative of his true intentions than his 2003 comments in a friendly environment while stumping for a friend, where no one attacks what he says and he can speak his mind. I think it would be significantly easier if he would have just said he changed his mind, or he's heard the will of the people and chosen to represent their wishes. But he insists on pitching the divergent statements as inherently consistent.

If you're right, I'll feel bad for having been so suspicious and contrarian, and if I'm right, you'll be shocked and appalled at the deception by all the Democrats. Cause the Democrats have enough control of Congress to pass whatever they want.

one, barney frank has said he will not vote for dingell's bill because it doesn't call for a single payer system.

two, the single payer language is "left out" of the legislation because...and this is important....it isn't a program of single payer insurance! amazing coincidence isn't it?

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly aren't Republican elite, I will eat my hat. There is a reason Fox News has such a huge audience, as you say. It ain't because those guys are fringe characters.

The reason the Republicans are where they are right now is that they are utterly devoid of leadership. An unpopular Obama does not, and cannot, change that.

Believe what you want. And watch fly over States bounce the Majority next year, and watch Obama become a one term dude. I watch O'Reilly. He has stuff I hate and find annoying, he has some interesting stuff. I find Hannity and Limbaugh total wastes of oxygen. But if I have to pick between the opinion the tea baggers were totally shams, red necks protesting a black man in the big chair, instead of people concerned about a foolish fiscal plan that will doom us to a second class status, I'll take Hannity.

I don't think people watch Fox News in the numbers they do because they are some kind of auto-banjo picking drool cup morons waiting to have their tiny little heads filled with what to think.

I think they watch it because they don't live in Southern Cali, or DC or New York City. They haven't graduated from Columbia or Ivy League schools. But they also wouldn't be rudely dismissive of them.

They watch it because they now have a choice. The ratings go Fox, CNN then MSNBC trailing badly. If it wasn't Fox, it would be CNN and MSNBC trailing badly. They had two wire services and three networks for decades, Turner shook it up but didn't really view the political world that differently.

It wasn't luck Johnny Carson was so popular. Or that Letterman tripled Tom Synder immediately. Letterman lost out of his childhood dream of sitting in Carson's seat because his Midwest upbringing wouldn't let him push. He asked Carson what he would do. "It's not the Tonight Show anymore, I'd walk" so he did saying little.

I think that silent majority thing gets misinterpreted. I think much of that audience would bolt from New York area raised Hannity and O'Reilly bluster if they had a choice. Limbaugh just happened to be a first.

It's O'Henry ironic reading the comments on political blogs about Faux News and Rush telling people what to think when it sprouted up basically overnight like shrooms in a wet pasture after Carvel and Obama tossed it out. Many times it's the only answer.

I'd bet real money the average Fox watcher finds Anne Coulter annoying. They might switch if the other channels weren't treating them as morons and mocking them. I'd also bet they're like me and watch the news on the other channels. I doubt the opposite is true.

What you're being fed is not real. I don't know your age or how long you've followed politics, but I'm guessing maybe Bush the Elder? Johnson, Carter, Clinton. Now look at the opponents they put up against Reagan and 41 and W. See a pattern? Grumble about 2000, but there was really no reason the VP of a President who had a 80% approval and eight years of boom to come down to Florida.

They were shocked Gore lost. They were shocked in '02 when they lost majorities. Then '04 with Kerry. Terry McCallife was going to take out Gov. Bubby Bush to revenge 2000. The Dems we doing the same "Oh woe is us we've lost our way" until '06.

I've seen this show before. Jimmy Carter was post- Jim Crow-KKK- hope-and change. The longer he spoke the shorter the gap and Ford damn near caught him. I think McCain would have caught Obama. I think a more traditional conservative might have been leading. That unprecedented meltdown and McCains decision to charge in and then vote for the TARP bill lost it. Had he voted against it or merely been present like Obama?

It's a mistake to confuse objections and conditions. When the sitting President is at under 30% approval rating, there's a very unpopular war and the economy is in freefall, that's a condition. Obama ran an outstanding campaign, he's brilliant and charismatic and pulled in people who never voted before. His lack of actual experience was offset by running against a condition.

McCain refused to challenge "eight years of failed policies" like Gore would have missed out on 9-11, jacked up mortgage qualifications while Jessie and Al slapped him on the back for doing it. He might have let the Saddam refusing to allow full access thing ride. Never even attempted to use the historically low Congressional ratings at the beginning. Might have come in handy later. Not his style. Or asked why Bin Ladden ever had the impression he would survive 9-11. Why the UN had allowed Saddam to blow off inspectors. Stuff that should have blunted things.

Seen the approval ratings of Congress? I don't think Obama is insincere, stupid or a puppet. I don't think Bush was either. The far Left or Right don't swing elections. The Far Right isn't really known for organizing demonstrations. There isn't really an Acorn, Animal Rights, Peta kind of organization. Maybe Gun Nuts. Wacko Anti-abortionists who kill doctors, aren't amped up by O'Reilly.

I voted for W, would have happily voted against him if the choice wasn't Lurch or Gore. I'm an Independent, voted each Party and a Third Party once. Been doing it for over 30 years. You're wrong. The Dems have way overreached.

This smug "we won, Republicans don't matter, sore losers" is going to leave a very large, red backhand on the Party. Gray headed Midwesterners don't get this upset easily. It was bad blowing off the tea baggers. This is not some astro turf. These folks do slow burns. This is very unwise. They usually just vote you out and you do a WTF? You better hope this elaborate organized by Fox, Republican shill leadership cause you say it a lot, is true.


It wasn't brilliant leadership, it was a condition that got the Party the homer. Give the Dems a little upside they step all over their genitalia. The smart thing would have been to at least bring in losers and toss them a bone and make them part of the process. Nah, they wanted to enjoy it and punish them for the time in the wilderness. Now you want cover? You want the heat turned down?

The Dems are just getting judged on the condition. You might like to think this wouldn't be happening if Fox didn't exist, but you'd be mistaken.

Hope it's not a Stetson.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I don't think people watch Fox News in the numbers they do because they are some kind of auto-banjo picking drool cup morons waiting to have their tiny little heads filled with what to think.

I think they watch it because they don't live in Southern Cali, or DC or New York City. They haven't graduated from Columbia or Ivy League schools. But they also wouldn't be rudely dismissive of them.

They watch it because they now have a choice.

You hit the nail on the head. They watch FoxNews because they are not cosmopolitan, they are not educated, and they FINALLY have a "news source" that appeals to their backwoods way of thinking. FoxNews and MSNBC are the only two "news sources" that are demonstrably biased in their presentation. For the backwoods types, FoxNews couldn't have come soon enough.

The ratings go Fox, CNN then MSNBC trailing badly. If it wasn't Fox, it would be CNN and MSNBC trailing badly. They had two wire services and three networks for decades, Turner shook it up but didn't really view the political world that differently.

Again, for the backwoodsmen, it is Fox or nothing else. The more civilized have several options. It stands to reason, then, that you would add up all those other options, compare them to the redneck one, and draw conclusions based on that.

I'd bet real money the average Fox watcher finds Anne Coulter annoying. They might switch if the other channels weren't treating them as morons and mocking them. I'd also bet they're like me and watch the news on the other channels. I doubt the opposite is true.

I'd bet real money that you are wrong. If there is one thing that I know with certainty, it's that you can't change the mind of someone who watches FoxNews and thinks that the rest of the channels are biased against them.

I think McCain would have caught Obama. I think a more traditional conservative might have been leading.

This reflects your gross misunderstanding of the last election cycle. Bush was the poster boy for "traditional conservatism." Folks didn't want that anymore.

This is not some astro turf. These folks do slow burns.

They can slow burn all they want. They simply are not relevant any longer. The electorate has shifted--and permanently, I believe--in a direction counter to their backwards way of thinking.

[Nowitzki4President]

Just gonna throw my two cents into this.

I watch MSNBC because they don't f**king talk about Michael Jackson (Rachael Maddow doesn't anyway, I mainly watch her)

I watch FoxNews because it's entertaining to watch a wreck. I usually find myself sitting and watching Beck or O'Reilly and thinking to myself how backwards and retarded these men are, especially O'Reilly. Think of it as watching the Circus.

I watch CNN because it gives real non-biased news (Minus MJ, that's not news anymore, just annoying).

[dude1394]

"If Kenneth Gladney was an Obama supporter, right now he'd be more famous than Rodney King. Al Sharpton would have a whole rack of new suits."

[92bDad]

I try to watch MSNBC, but they don't broadcast in HD...So I stick to Fox News and CNN

When I do slum down to the unsophisticated analog, and catch some MSNBC, I find myself getting ill at the leftist slant they promote.

I try to do the same with CNN HD, but they too have a leftist slant. Perhaps not as in your face as MSNBC, but no doubt they report with a leftist view.

Watching Fox News provides me with some moments of clarity and truth. Now, when the Truth leads you to the right...for some reason it makes Fox News biased...perhaps its better views as the Truth is biased to the right.

Fox News is fair and balanced.

As for Obama and the Democrats...they might as well keep trampling on the rights of Americans, they might as well keep treating American Citizens as 2nd class and dismiss our voices.

As for party politics...as I have voiced in the past...I would prefer that we remove all Democrats and All Republicans...at least all references to a party. Let Americans vote on individuals based on their track record, not blind propoganda promises that are simply manipulations to misrepresent their intent.

Promises don't mean a thing...it's time to vote for candidates based on how they voted as they came up through the ranks...only then can we tell if these candidates best represent the ideals of America and the founding fathers.

[dude1394]

Thought exercise. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...lag_97829.html

August 9, 2009 Rally Around the Flag By Debra Saunders Imagine it's four years ago and an aide to President Bush posted a blog on the Whitehouse.gov website that bemoaned Internet criticism of the Iraq war, then continued: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversations. "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about anti-war protests that seem fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.''

[aquaadverse]

You hit the nail on the head. They watch FoxNews because they are not cosmopolitan, they are not educated, and they FINALLY have a "news source" that appeals to their backwoods way of thinking. FoxNews and MSNBC are the only two "news sources" that are demonstrably biased in their presentation. For the backwoods types, FoxNews couldn't have come soon enough.

LOL. Yeah, they don't have dishes or cable. They own companies, businesses. Grow your food and sign the front of checks. Probably don't even own computers.
Unlike their cosmopolitan, intellectuality gifted superiors, they are totally unable to brilliantly analyze the content of the source of information and choose a media they think reflects a more accurate status.

They don't know what a stock or bond is, but are eagerly awaiting the cushy retirement due them once they complete their investment in the Commemorative Plates of NASCAR.

Fox caught a huge break when one of them got up to change the channel by the vise-grips clamped on the knob of their cable box, which slipped and the commercial running on Fox was G. Gordan Liddy pitching gold shares. The shiny winking transfixed him, and low level communication shared by the herd had them all shuffling to turn to the same channel. The rest is your logic empty history.

I'd bet real money that you are wrong. If there is one thing that I know with certainty, it's that you can't change the mind of someone who watches FoxNews and thinks that the rest of the channels are biased against them.

Well , I know several including myself who do. You might want to expand you political circle.

This reflects your gross misunderstanding of the last election cycle. Bush was the poster boy for "traditional conservatism." Folks didn't want that anymore.

Not really. Neither W or McCain was considered traditionally conservative. Bush never used his veto to reign in spending. McCain tried to pimp the "Maverick" in his Party. Palin was considered more of a true conservative. She energized the base and was the reason McCain was surging. She was just too inexperienced. She wasn't even being mentioned and got thrust into the process way late and got overwhelmed.

If McCain had voted against the TARP bill he would have won, or it would have been much closer. It would have separated him from Bush. Instead he folded and looked stupid. McCain was in a statistical dead heat after Obama looked silly over his Iraq position. He got shamed into visiting the situation where people were dying for the first time in almost two years. He had just dropped 8 points over that silly head-of-state Euro-Orgy. And a totally ineffective answer for the run up in crude. Considering W, the Iraq War, the economy, this wasn't Reagan-Carter like you seem to think. Dead heat until the scariest economic event most people had ever experienced makes your evaluation a bit revisionist. But I guess leaving virtually all the Bush military and intelligence policies intact, the GITMO situation an unresolved mess and discussing taxing health plan benefits is a huge shift.

They can slow burn all they want. They simply are not relevant any longer. The electorate has shifted--and permanently, I believe--in a direction counter to their backwards way of thinking.

You misunderstand my point, probably from my lack of clarity. These folks aren't going to be normally hollering at town halls. Their backward way of thinking, and the gray heads, tells me they have lived through a period of high unemployment, seeing manufacturing hauling ass and inflation which is a totally dry, intellectual exercise for a large portion of the public. Toss in another spike in crude and it's the '70's again. The tech revolution saved our ass and was not on the radar.

Current Congressional approval is at 20%. You better hope the laws of economic theory has also managed to magically change permanently.

[dude1394]

Bigotry is an ugly thing.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

LOL. Yeah, they don't have dishes or cable. They own companies, businesses. Grow your food and sign the front of checks. Probably don't even own computers.
Unlike their cosmopolitan, intellectuality gifted superiors, they are totally unable to brilliantly analyze the content of the source of information and choose a media they think reflects a more accurate status.

They don't know what a stock or bond is, but are eagerly awaiting the cushy retirement due them once they complete their investment in the Commemorative Plates of NASCAR.

Fox caught a huge break when one of them got up to change the channel by the vise-grips clamped on the knob of their cable box, which slipped and the commercial running on Fox was G. Gordan Liddy pitching gold shares. The shiny winking transfixed him, and low level communication shared by the herd had them all shuffling to turn to the same channel. The rest is your logic empty history.


Well , I know several including myself who do. You might want to expand you political circle.


Not really. Neither W or McCain was considered traditionally conservative. Bush never used his veto to reign in spending. McCain tried to pimp the "Maverick" in his Party. Palin was considered more of a true conservative. She energized the base and was the reason McCain was surging. She was just too inexperienced. She wasn't even being mentioned and got thrust into the process way late and got overwhelmed.

Wonderful post. I owe you rep.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Thought exercise. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...lag_97829.html

the irony of so delicious....

it was of course the bush white house which put out the dishonest "rumors" in attempts to rally support for their war, engaged in a campaign of disinformation (see the attempts to link hussein to "terrorism") and so much "fishy" conduct they could easily have adopted underdog's octopus logo as their own.

the bush white house would not have asked for the information, they would just have employed their illegal domestic spying and wiretapping to find those americans who were putting forth the truth.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Unlike their cosmopolitan, intellectuality gifted superiors, they are totally unable to brilliantly analyze the content of the source of information and choose a media they think reflects a more accurate status.

Again, you are exactly right. They have no interest in even thinking about, much less analyzing, different points of view. They seek a "news source" that confirms the beliefs they already hold.

It really is not more complicated than that.

[Nowitzki4President]

Screw it, I can't take discussing things with conservatives. The last straw is when someone said "Fox News is fair and balanced"... Even though it does the bidding of the Republican Party? Whatever. Same could be said for MSNBC and the Democrats, but you don't see me foolishly saying it's fair and balanced.

If Fox was fair and balanced, they wouldn't have on the screen a box that says "Healthcare Nightmare" when discussing the matter. They would just put forward the facts and let the viewer decide. The only people who think FoxNews is fair and balanced are right wing nut jobs.

There's a reason us on the left are called Progressives, because we want progress. To make society a better place. Those on the right might as well be called backwardists at this point. I'm done with this part of the Mavs forum, I should have realized what I was walking into. This place is littered with people from Texas. I'm from Dallas myself, so I'm not saying I hate Texas or anything, but most people from Texas are brain-dead politically. Have fun trying to get elected again, Republicans...

Everything has shifted right. Democrats are the new Republicans, Republicans are the new people in a mental asylum.

There's no party that supports Healthcare for everyone, gay marriage, higher taxes on the rich and lower on the poor, fighting corporate influence in Washington, cutting the military budget and using the money we have for it on actually national defense rather than national invading of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, gun control, legalization of marijuana.

There's no party for the left. There's a party for the center-right (Democrats) and a party for the nearly politically retarded (Republicans).

Yeah...

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Again, you are exactly right. They have no interest in even thinking about, much less analyzing, different points of view. They seek a "news source" that confirms the beliefs they already hold.

It really is not more complicated than that.

Pity everyone isn't as open minded and resistant to stereotyped, prepackaged labels as yourself. I bet you thought making a profit wasn't important anymore during the new DotCom economy. It was all about the mouse clicks.

[aquaadverse]

it was of course the bush white house which put out the dishonest "rumors" in attempts to rally support for their war, engaged in a campaign of disinformation (see the attempts to link hussein to "terrorism") and so much "fishy" conduct they could easily have adopted underdog's octopus logo as their own.

Yeah, refusing the inspectors access never entered in to it. Saddam could have fulfilled his agreement, the UN could have enforced the terms which was their pre-bribed responsibility or W's father could have won a second term. Any of the 3 and we wouldn't be discussing Iraq.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Yeah, refusing the inspectors access never entered in to it. Saddam could have fulfilled his agreement, the UN could have enforced the terms which was their pre-bribed responsibility or W's father could have won a second term. Any of the 3 and we wouldn't be discussing Iraq.

so you are a person who justifies illegal conduct by what others did?

why, there are people who break the law, so why shouldn't I do the same? "dad, all the other kids are doing it..."

not only ridiculous, but also exhibiting a complete lack of a moral/ethical compass.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so you are a person who justifies illegal conduct by what others did?

why, there are people who break the law, so why shouldn't I do the same? "dad, all the other kids are doing it..."

not only ridiculous, but also exhibiting a complete lack of a moral/ethical compass.

No I'm saying after 9-11 when we had weapons grade Anthrax showing up in the mail, people dying and buildings needing to be decontaminated, it was unacceptable for the UN to allow Saddam to limit access. I hope you are trolling, otherwise you missed the actual total events.

What's ridiculous was the oil for food bribes that had Saddam comfortable enough to do that. What's ridiculous is people blowing off he went to the UN twice to get them to do the job they agreed to. He warned Saddam several times and gave him the 11th hour exile route.

But what's really ridiculous is your logic. This is more like I call the cops repeatedly and ask them to checkout a threat to my family over a period of months and they refuse to do so, despite clear evidence of law breaking and beyond any doubt it was willful. I'm going to act if all the other avenues, that are supposed to work and are literally spelled out were given repeated chances and refused. Saddam and the UN were much more culpable and could have stopped it several times. This was the cops getting money to look the other way. Maybe at that point you wouldn't step up to protect the people that depended on you, but I would. And I expect most people would agree and support that moral and ethical compass, while yours would be contemptable.

There is no reason for Saddam to deny inspectors access unless was hiding or attempting to give the impression he had those weapons. He admitted it himself. There was no reason for the UN to refuse to act. None.

Stating Bush just up and rolled into Baghdad is wrong. Your simplistic argument ignores so many other facts and conditions, I hope you were embarrassed typing it.

Maybe this might help:

http://www.aesops-fables.org.uk/aeso...his-mother.htm

You can continue to believe Bush was the devil and conveniently ignore both the UN and Saddam had simply refused to do their part. You can ignore Anthrax or jump on the Bush sent it so he could make his buddies richer, revenge his Daddy, blood for oil blathering. Or you can stay in the shallow end with the simpletons over this. How many other situations can you issue a "stop or I'll say stop again" that leads to disaster? This isn't a complex social and psychological concept. You can't house train your dog, make you kids respect curfews manage employees or coach softball. You are setting expectations. See Aesop.

He refused to let the UN short circuit our security interests. Many of the countries on the security council, and the Secretary General were The evidence is irrefutable and goes far beyond your simple ethical morality premise, "since they did it we can". What's missing is your ability to have your intellectual compass move more than a degree either way.

[chumdawg]

Saddam was representing WMD capabilities for the expressed purpose of keeping Iran at bay. Either we knew this or we should have. Take your pick.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so you are a person who justifies illegal conduct by what others did?

why, there are people who break the law, so why shouldn't I do the same? "dad, all the other kids are doing it..."

not only ridiculous, but also exhibiting a complete lack of a moral/ethical compass.

No I'm saying after 9-11 when we had weapons grade Anthrax showing up in the mail, people dying and buildings needing to be decontaminated, it was unacceptable for the UN to allow Saddam to limit access. I hope you are trolling, otherwise you missed the actual total events.

What's ridiculous was the oil for food bribes that had Saddam comfortable enough to do that. What's ridiculous is people blowing off he went to the UN twice to get them to do the job they agreed to. He warned Saddam several times and gave him the 11th hour exile route.

But what's really ridiculous is your logic. This is more like I call the cops repeatedly and ask them to checkout a threat to my family over a period of months and they refuse to do so, despite clear evidence of law breaking and beyond any doubt it was willful. I'm going to act if all the other avenues, that are supposed to work and are literally spelled out were given repeated chances and refused. Saddam and the UN were much more culpable and could have stopped it several times. This was the cops getting money to look the other way. Maybe at that point you wouldn't step up to protect the people that depended on you, but I would. And I expect most people would agree and support that moral and ethical compass.

There is no reason for Saddam to deny inspectors access unless was hiding or attempting to give the impression he had those weapons. He admitted it himself. There was no reason for the UN to refuse to act. None.

Stating Bush just up and rolled into Baghdad is wrong. Your simplistic argument ignores so many other facts and conditions, I hope you were embarrassed typing it.

Maybe this might help:

http://www.aesops-fables.org.uk/aeso...his-mother.htm

You can continue to believe Bush was the devil and conveniently ignore both the UN and Saddam had simply refused to do their part. You can ignore Anthrax or jump on the Bush sent it so he could make his buddies richer, revenge his Daddy, blood for oil blathering. Or you can stay in the shallow end with the simpletons over this. How many other situations can you issue a "stop or I'll say stop again" that leads to disaster? This isn't a complex social and psychological concept. You can't house train your dog, make you kids respect curfews manage employees or coach softball. You are setting expectations. See Aesop.

He refused to let the UN short circuit our security interests. Many of the countries on the security council, and the Secretary General were compromised The evidence is irrefutable and goes far beyond your simple ethical morality premise, "since they did it we can".