Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[BVS]

Nuances like? Apparently I'm obtuse so why don't you enlighten me.

I don't find the excuses that Obama supporters make for Bush-like national security policy to be nuanced at all.

You say things like "let the market heal itself", when asked how or for real details, you bail out of the conversation.

You do the same thing here... What excuses are "Obama supporters" making? How is he being Bush-like? He was given these circumstances, what exactly was he suppose to do?

 

[BonosSaint]

I'll take a flip-flopper any day. I won't let anyone manipulate me or a leader I support from the right to a different decision if it appears to be correct.
I do realize this should not happen very often, for credibility purposes.
And only when new information makes the 'so-called' reversal sensible.

I agree, but when a change is made, there should be a clear explanation....ie, continuation of military tribunals for the prisoners. Regarding the Abu Ghraib photos--I haven't decided what I think about the Obama reversal on allowing them to be released, but a few of his quotes make me uncomfortable.

Obama said the incidents pictured in the photographs "were investigated -- and, I might add, investigated long before I took office -- and, where appropriate, sanctions have been applied....[T]his is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."

But this suggests that Obama has bought into the false Bush-administration narrative that the abuses of detainees were isolated acts, rather than part of an endemic system of abuse implicitly sanctioned at the highest levels of government. The Bushian view has been widely discredited -- and for Obama to endorse it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the past.

Open Left:: Obama's Roll-Back On "A Few Bad Apples"

I don't fundamentally disagree with deep on stay-the-course presidents. But I think it's fair to be uncomfortable when the change in course seems backwards.

I think Obama's a smart man. I don't think he is misunderstanding the past. I'm afraid he is misstating it.

 

[financeguy]

Please tell me what evidence you have to back that up. Because frankly, I'm sick of people like you practically calling a racist anyone who wants our borders enforced, our laws enforced, less criminals on the street, people not to cut in line of those who have been waiting years to come here legally, and less stress put on this country's already stressed-to-the-max services and entitlements. For the last time, my position on illegal immigration (and that of about 99% of conservatives) is NOT based on race. I love Mexicans. I love Canadians. I love everyone who isn't a criminal and doesn't want to harm this country. But for God's sake, come here legally. Get in line. Obey the law. BVS, with all due respect, if I hear you make this racism argument one more time I swear my head is going to explode. So please, please provide for me some pretty damn convincing evidence that the position on illegal immigration of an overwhelming number of conservatives is based on hatred and racism and xenophobia.

What this ignores is that Bush was probably the most pro-immigration president in history.

 

[AliEnvy]

You say things like "let the market heal itself", when asked how or for real details, you bail out of the conversation.

I've said more than once that failing companies should fail and the money being wasted on big bailouts be spent on supporting employment transition and R&D. Maybe you weren't paying attention.

You do the same thing here...

I love how I've bailed on the conversation before being asked questions. I must be psychic.

How is he being Bush-like?

Read the last link I posted and the ones below.

Obama's latest effort to conceal evidence of Bush era crimes - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Obama's embrace of Bush terrorism policies is celebrated as "Centrism" - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

He was given these circumstances, what exactly was he suppose to do?

Excuses like this.

 

[BVS]

I've said more than once that failing companies should fail and the money being wasted on big bailouts be spent on supporting employment transition and R&D. Maybe you weren't paying attention.

Except that's like losing 100 jobs and replacing it with 5.

I love how I've bailed on the conversation before being asked questions. I must be psychic.

What campaign promises is Obama not living up to?

All I got was snarky remarks...

Read the last link I posted and the ones below.

Obama's latest effort to conceal evidence of Bush era crimes - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Obama's embrace of Bush terrorism policies is celebrated as "Centrism" - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

A lot of speculation, don't you think? Did you really think these opinion pieces were all that good?

He stated to the world, what all of us already knew that torture was taking place, but since he didn't release the photos he's "Bush-like"?

I really wanted specifics of promises he's made, that he's had the ability to enact, but hasn't...

Excuses like this.

How is that an excuse? Seriously what is the alternative?

 

[AliEnvy]

Except that's like losing 100 jobs and replacing it with 5.

That will likely happen anyway - all the bailout money is buying is time. All the money flushed into the black hole of propping up the dead wood will be gone when social program support is needed most.

He stated to the world, what all of us already knew that torture was taking place, but since he didn't release the photos he's "Bush-like"?

So much for transparency and accountability in government. Weren't those promises?

YouTube - Rachel Maddow: Indefinite detention? Shame on you... President Obama

I really wanted specifics of promises he's made, that he's had the ability to enact, but hasn't...

This would be one.

“By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,” Illinois Democratic Senator Barack Obama said as a candidate for president. Sadly, the administration is now on the brink of reviving the military commissions in a major reversal of a well-worn Obama campaign promise.

If you're actually interested in his broken promises ratio, you can look it up and feel free to dispute the circumstances.

How is that an excuse? Seriously what is the alternative?

The fact that Bush left a stinking pile of poop is now irrelevant. Blaming the past in any situation is an excuse.

 

[phillyfan26]

That will likely happen anyway - all the bailout money is buying is time. All the money flushed into the black hole of propping up the dead wood will be gone when social program support is needed most.

But then this leads to the completely unfeasible idea that we sacrifice a majority of the jobs of a whole generation and start from scratch, in hopes of a better future. There's no possible world in which any government institution would do something like that. I certainly don't want to get out of college in four years with huge debt and no chance at a job because you think all of the businesses should have gotten no help.

 

[BVS]

This would be one.

“By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,” Illinois Democratic Senator Barack Obama said as a candidate for president. Sadly, the administration is now on the brink of reviving the military commissions in a major reversal of a well-worn Obama campaign promise.

Is he reviving the tribunals as they were?

If you're actually interested in his broken promises ratio, you can look it up and feel free to dispute the circumstances.

You make the accusation, but I'm suppose to do your work?

The fact that Bush left a stinking pile of poop is now irrelevant. Blaming the past in any situation is an excuse.

How is this irrelevant? You make no sense. It's not the freaking past, it's the present. There is no reset button.

You haven't given me one realistic alternative.

 

[AliEnvy]

What/who is it exactly that you think you're so staunchly defending? Are you arguing for the sake of argument? For the sake of taking sides? To save face?

If you want to fully support Obama's national security policies, knock yourself out. I highly doubt you would afford McCain the same leniency had he been elected.

Is he reviving the tribunals as they were?

What changes of substance have been made that make them acceptable to you or substantially different than Bush's approach? Do you think focusing on the minutia will discredit critics looking at the big picture?

You make the accusation, but I'm suppose to do your work?

Your petulant demands are "my work"? Awesome! How many of the 388,000 Obamameter web links would you like me to spoon feed you?

Is your point to suggest that Obama hasn't actually broken any promises? Or that broken promises are not his fault/responsibility? That's what I initially questioned because suggestions to that effect to me seem at best exaggerations or denial and at worst the type of partisan hypocrisy leveled at Bush supporters for the last 8 years.

You've come at me with the tenacity of a pit bull which suggests one of the two extremes.

You haven't given me one realistic alternative.

It's funny and a bit surreal, addressing this question make me feel like I'm talking to a republican 6 months ago.

I guess the current rule of law, constitution, bill of rights etc. are no longer realistic in this dangerous world. Too bad so sad.

Cheesy quote time -

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

~Ben Franklin

 

[BVS]

What/who is it exactly that you think you're so staunchly defending? Are you arguing for the sake of argument? For the sake of taking sides? To save face?

I'm staunchly defending common sense. Are you aware of what you are defending, because I'm not sure you are?

What changes of substance have been made that make them acceptable to you or substantially different than Bush's approach? Do you think focusing on the minutia will discredit critics looking at the big picture?

Have you not been paying attention? He's allowing them lawyers of their choosing and no longer allowing any "evidence" obtained by torture or hearsay. And the rest will be tried in federal courts. Anyone who thought that all could go to federal courts or be released were fooling themselves.

Your petulant demands are "my work"?

It's common sense that the person making the accusation should back it up or at least be able to... So far you've just made the accusations.

Is your point to suggest that Obama hasn't actually broken any promises? Or that broken promises are not his fault/responsibility? That's what I initially questioned because suggestions to that effect to me seem at best exaggerations or denial and at worst the type of partisan hypocrisy leveled at Bush supporters for the last 8 years.

My point is that I haven't seen anything that he said he would do, that is now within his power and either hasn't done or has done a 180.

You've come at me with the tenacity of a pit bull which suggests one of the two extremes.

I haven't come at you any differently then I would anyone else that repeatedly made statements they haven't been able to back up...

It's funny and a bit surreal, addressing this question make me feel like I'm talking to a republican 6 months ago.

That's funny, I feel like I'm talking to one now.

I guess the current rule of law, constitution, bill of rights etc. are no longer realistic in this dangerous world. Too bad so sad.

Oh, please explain this one...

 

[AliEnvy]

I'm staunchly defending common sense. Are you aware of what you are defending, because I'm not sure you are?

Every time you respond you make less sense but whatever. In case you hadn't realized it yet, I'm on the offense.

It's common sense that the person making the accusation should back it up or at least be able to... So far you've just made the accusations.

I've posted quite a bit of info, you've chosen to dismiss it.

That's funny, I feel like I'm talking to one now.

I know. That's why it's amusing to watch you say anything to be confrontational.

 

[BVS]

I've posted quite a bit of info, you've chosen to dismiss it.

But you honestly haven't. You've posted a few speculative articles about how Obama is a little more "Bush-like" than we expected, and some cryptic phrases about how the Constitution isn't realistic anymore... but you haven't shown anything that was concrete or specific.

I know. That's why it's amusing to watch you say anything to be confrontational.

I have no clue what you're trying to say here...

 

[AliEnvy]

I have no clue what you're trying to say here...

Let's leave it at that and call it a day.

 

[BVS]

 

[INDY500]

Tomorrow the "teabaggers" speak.

 

[deep]

I want my cuntree back!

 

[Irvine511]

Tomorrow the "teabaggers" speak.

tell me, does the GOP have any plan at all to actually govern? or do they just want to watch the blood fly?

 

[randhail]

Tomorrow the "teabaggers" speak.

As teabaggers, how will they speak if they have something in their mouthes?

 

[INDY500]

As teabaggers, how will they speak if they have something in their mouthes?

Is that you Dan Quayle?

 

[BVS]

tell me, does the GOP have any plan at all to actually govern? or do they just want to watch the blood fly?

I think most of the world knows the answer to this, but I would really like to see what 2861, INDY, or Bluer White has to say about this...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

tell me, does the GOP have any plan at all to actually govern? or do they just want to watch the blood fly?

I think it's cut spending, cut taxes (and back to tax breaks for wealthy)=creation of jobs. And oppose the Obama agenda.

I do think it was a huge mistake for Obama and the Democrats to rush health care while we have 10 plus percent unemployment and are still in a big recession. And to go about it in a closed doors behind the scenes way when he talked so much about transparency. How could they not know that this would create anger and resentment?

 

[INDY500]

tell me, does the GOP have any plan at all to actually govern? or do they just want to watch the blood fly?

Believe it or not, if even with a loss in MA, president Obama and the Democrats will have larger majorities in the House and Senate than Bush or Reagan ever enjoyed. Republicans are not the party in power.

So for now we'll just settle for the "reaching across the aisle' and "government transparency" all of us were promised.

 

[melon]

Believe it or not, if even with a loss in MA, president Obama and the Democrats will have larger majorities in the House and Senate than Bush or Reagan ever enjoyed. Republicans are not the party in power.

So for now we'll just settle for the "reaching across the aisle' and "government transparency" all of us were promised.

Non-civility and the profligate use of the filibuster is the main difference between now and then.

Perhaps it's time to use the "nuclear option" once and for all, and kill the filibuster as a tool for obstructionism. And, yes, I say this with the realization that the GOP will someday be in the majority again (as is typical in the election cycle), and that the Democrats should no longer use it either.

 

[INDY500]

Non-civility and the profligate use of the filibuster is the main difference between now and then.

Perhaps it's time to use the "nuclear option" once and for all, and kill the filibuster as a tool for obstructionism. And, yes, I say this with the realization that the GOP will someday be in the majority again (as is typical in the election cycle), and that the Democrats should no longer use it either.

Or go back to listening to their constituents rather than trying to jam unpopular bills through with political bribes, payoffs and gimmicks.

 

[PhilsFan]

Believe it or not, if even with a loss in MA, president Obama and the Democrats will have larger majorities in the House and Senate than Bush or Reagan ever enjoyed. Republicans are not the party in power.

So for now we'll just settle for the "reaching across the aisle' and "government transparency" all of us were promised.

How in the hell does that even answer his question?

His question is that once you guys get some power back, what are you going to do?

I mean, seriously, the GOP seems entirely about hating random shit and nothing else. We hate taxes! We hate "liberal progressives!" We hate terrorists/foreign people! We hate big government! We hate the recession!

Great. What the fuck are you going to do about it, then? Obviously, you think the people currently working at doing something aren't doing it right. What's your idea?

 

[PhilsFan]

Or go back to listening to their constituents rather than trying to jam unpopular bills through with political bribes, payoffs and gimmicks.

What if, gasp, the constituents don't know what the fuck they're talking about?

 

[coolian2]

What if, gasp, the constituents don't know what the fuck they're talking about?

i think the gop are giving their fans an inflated sense of worth because like their constituents, they're thick as pig shit.

 

[melon]

Or go back to listening to their constituents rather than trying to jam unpopular bills through with political bribes, payoffs and gimmicks.

Cute, but, as we both know, corruption is at least as much a part of the GOP as it is for the Democrats. I won't even try and start a discussion as to which one is worse--they're both bad.

Obama's election, I believe, was a vote for Obama, and not the Democratic Party. Of course, what the GOP doesn't understand, is that it wasn't a vote for the Republican Party either.

 

[Irvine511]

Or go back to listening to their constituents rather than trying to jam unpopular bills through with political bribes, payoffs and gimmicks.

i do agree on one point you're making: there is only one adult left in DC.

thankfully, he's in the White House.

 

[Bluer White]

What if, gasp, the constituents don't know what the fuck they're talking about?

Who does, then?