The Tea Party - Page 41 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-19-2010, 01:06 AM   #601
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 01:15 AM
The idea of Reagan as cowboy savior of America's revenues, slasher of tax burdens and fiscal wizard extraordinaire is a perfect representation of the kind of "idiot America" culture we have come to glorify!

Think about it. We worship fakers like John Wayne, who would have shit his pants if he ever had to go near a real war. Reagan often made claims of being a war hero, and there is evidence he really thought he was. If Obama made claim #1 even remotely resembling this, he would, and this may not be a nice or pleasant thing for me to say or even imply, be ASSASSINATED by some right wing militia within a week! At the very minimum FOX NEWS would be screaming TREASON and the Secret Service would be on the look out for Sarah with the Palin family rifle looking to get in a shot!

It is just like I said about people thinking Judge Judy is a Supreme Court Justice and being reliant on GPS devices to tell them everything, including how to do their taxes and WALK TO PLACES!

The worst part about it is Ronald Reagan is the ultimate cult of personality that people accuse Obama of being. Almost everything about the man is a complete myth! People think Democrats idolize Obama and make him out to be someone who walks on water(as Peggy Noonan LITERALLY claimed Reagan did). Not true now, and it will certainly not be true years after he is dead!! Want to talk style over substance, Reagan is your guy. In fact, even if you buy this about Obama(which some wrongly do, he clearly knows the issues and can discuss them and is more intelligent/serious than Reagan, but set that aside for a second), you have to admit that Reagan was the one who "made it ok" so to speak!

Every Republican running for office today has to bow down at the altar of a long dead figure head who left office before the world knew Lovetown, the end of the Soviet Union, the breaking up of Yugoslavia, Achtung Baby, Zoo TV, ATYCLB, Vertigo and 360! Please!
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 01:19 AM   #602
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
A common ground upon which to build.
Truer words have never been spoken!
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 01:31 AM   #603
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
you seem to spend a lot of thime thinking about and analizing politics

how do you think these November elections will turn out in the Congress and Senate?
Deep, I realize I have misinterpreted some of your posts in the past and jumped down your throat because I actually thought you were some teenaged troll! For that I apologize, and I've been meaning to say as much for a while!

You seem to spend a lot of time doing the same kind of analysis!

So what do I think?

I have as good an idea as you!!

We are in April, not September for one!

Of course, things do not look good for the Democrats right now, but the Republicans are making no surge in voter confidence either.

This is unlike in 1994, where they successfully made a "Contract" for every candidate to harp on while actually succeeding in the minority(read, stopping Clinton's health care proposal). They have not done much besides say "NO" as loud as they can and still not get their way!

Also, in 1994, though the economy was strengthening every single day, the right had done a good job(through talk radio, media and members of Congress like scumbag Dan Burton) of making everyone believe that this new Rhodes Scholar conservative Democrat from Arkansas was actually a slippery, scandal machine, slimeball liberal elitist who possessed nowhere near the moral right to the office of HW Bush or the still very popular Ronald Reagan.

Look back to GW Bush. Very few people on either side will defend him these days! Reagan was about as successful as GW, as I have already addressed, but he was still extremely well liked. So we had a conservative time period with "Reaganism" still popular(1994) versus a time when there is near uniform agreement that the recently finished 8 year conservative Republican was a fuck up(now)!

So I would caution against the 1994 comparisons that you see thrown around so casually for those reasons and the simple fact that I do not think, mathematically, the seats up for grabs are at the same level as then.

Still, it is undeniable that the Democrats could have a major problem, and history of course would suggest overall that they do, as the party in power in the executive branch almost always loses seats. The only recent exception was 1998, when the country was fed up to no end with the Republican Congress being obsessed with wasting taxpayer money investigating the penis of a middle aged man from Arkansas!
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 03:01 AM   #604
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Thanks . It's nice to meet you, and I think that's the first time I've ever been associated with the word "popular" . I'm returning regularly for a short time right now, but I'll try and keep coming back when possible after that.

And yay for similar lines of thinking!
Angela, you are welcome and it is nice to meet you too!

The popular thing I got from Martha's reaction to you.


Quote:
Fully agreed on all of this. Not to mention, if the citizens are complaining about the failed government, well, they only get into power because of us. So maybe the nation needs to rethink the way it votes a little (i.e., more of, "Ooh, I like so-and-so's national defense strategy, it seems sound and can solve x problems this way" and less of "Ooh, they drive a truck! Just like me! Naturally this means we're simpatico and they're a good leader and I'm gonna vote for him/her!").
About the best reasoning you will see if this kind of situation anywhere, never mind in FYM, where most conservatives lie and most liberals think rolling the eyes and repeating a stereotype is an argument!

There exists no all powerful, shadowy group of people hiding behind the biggest tree known to mankind that is making all the decisions as to who runs our country!

I am not trying to say I am better than/smarter than the rest of the world, but I know I was the only person in my circle to approach the 2008 election the following way:

I started out supporting Biden and Richardson, as they were the 2 best guys on the issues. I had always liked Biden, so when he announced, I was with him from early 2007. Only politician I have ever contributed to, and I expect it to remain that way! In early 2008, with Biden out, I was praying that Richardson would somehow catch on.

When the familiar Hillary vs Obama debate was being decided based on what people thought was the better first or who had the better personality, I went to work on the issues. I first figured Obama was more electable, as he had been endorsed by numerous red state Democrats.

Moving onto the debates, I was very happy that Obama refused to engage in the same kind of economic pandering as Hillary on trade, the gas tax and health care. I thought he was being practical and giving the best, most economically reasonable answers, even if they were tough to hear. It repulsed me that the recently very moderate to even right wing on economics Clinton was now trying to convince Ohio and Pennsylvania Democrats that she was taking John Edwards' or Dick Gephardt's place as the economic populist. Especially when she was on record as clearly knowing that NAFTA was not responsible for nearly the amount of job loss people claimed and that suspending the gas tax would help nothing but poll numbers and save no one money.

Obama was going for a clean, practical break from Bush, while Clinton was running around telling everyone she would be something she had never been!

Of course, there were issue differences between Hillary and Obama, though the media thought otherwise.

Being 23, I also get lumped in with the "college student, idealist, for Obama because he is the young, hip candidate" crowd which pisses me off to no end. Myself and 69 million other Americans voted for the man after initial skepticism because he proved his ability to conduct himself in a calm, cool, reasoned and well thought out manner in the face of adversity. I was more than happy to pull the lever for the old, grey haired, Irish Biden in the primary, long before any of my classmates knew his name!


Quote:
This is what I've heard (I was only 16 in 2000 and couldn't vote, and so I was not as familiar with McCain then as I've become in recent years. I just mainly remember the Bush vs. Gore debacle).
LOL, I was only 13, at the time! I do remember how happy my Dad, who was a combat medic in Vietnam and Gore supporter, was that McCain was ripping Bush apart and calling him out for defaming his war record and race baiting.

At the time, what struck me was that, no matter how enthusiastically you supported Bush, Bradley or Gore, you admired and respected John McCain. He was a man who stuck to his principles and was always classy.

You saw a truly heartwarming and refreshing glimpse of this when McCain conceded to Obama. It was 100% pure class, and I had not seen him like that since 2004 and certainly not since.

1 of 2 things happened that night:

1.)McCain told the right wing, Rove strategists to go fly a kite and called in his old team to write his speech for that night.

2.)McCain had a Karl Rove speech in front of him and decided to ignore it and speak from his own principles and values.

Quote:
*Nods* Mmhm. Unfortunately he had to start appealing to "the far-right base", so moderation went right out the window as a result. What he forgot is that if you narrow your support down to just those people, that's not enough people to help you, you know, win.
Funny how that works, isn't it?

And good for Obama for realizing this and not moving to the left when Hillary did it in the primaries!



Quote:
Too true. Well, hopefully his daughter will continue what he is abandoning and maybe some sanity can finally return.
It would be nice. Something has to give- we can't go on with one of our parties not even willing to discuss the issues in good faith and taking their cues from the extremist fringe!

The sad thing is I can not think of any sane Republican emerging in the next few years, certainly not right now, that would not get run out on a rail in the primary!

Just think what would happen if the 2000 version of John McCain came back with another name now! Telling the right they are wrong on campaign finance reform, wrong on immigration reform, wrong on global warming and wrong on tax cuts. He would be figuratively or even literally hung from the nearest tree! In 2000, not that long ago in the grand scheme of things, he won a good amount of primaries and had a very serious shot at the nomination. So much so that Bush had to race bait in South Carolina and attack his heroic war record. They did the same to John Kerry because they were afraid of him. Kerry was just stupid not to respond, and that did him in, but rest assured, they attacked him because they actually feared him, knew he was no special interest lackey like Gephardt, pompous blow hard like Dean, fence sitter like Lieberman or lightweight like Edwards!

I digress, but look how effective and powerful Kerry is now(especially with Pakistan strategy and energy policy) and look where his primary opponents, especially Edwards are! John Kerry is the ultimate testament to how the smear machine can distort forever the image of a strong, smart, independent and effective leader.

See you around, Angela!

-Greg Ander
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 12:31 PM   #605
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 12:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Angela, you are welcome and it is nice to meet you too!

The popular thing I got from Martha's reaction to you.
Ah. Well, I've made a few good friends on here-there's lots of really nice people here, lots of chance to make friends .

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
About the best reasoning you will see if this kind of situation anywhere, never mind in FYM, where most conservatives lie and most liberals think rolling the eyes and repeating a stereotype is an argument!
Heh, yes, unfortunately both sides throughout the country have been guilty of making flimsy arguments. It's a shame when that happens, because I've been in some really fun debates where both sides bring their A game to the discussion, and it's great! We desperately need more of that, the things we could get done if that happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
There exists no all powerful, shadowy group of people hiding behind the biggest tree known to mankind that is making all the decisions as to who runs our country!
Nope. We have to figure it out on our own.

I will say this in defense of the U.S. citizens, though...sometimes, unfortunately, they're basically forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. It's rare that one party or the other has a candidate that really wows people and actually has a game-changing plan. But it's not much fun when you're not enthused about EITHER candidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
I am not trying to say I am better than/smarter than the rest of the world, but I know I was the only person in my circle to approach the 2008 election the following way:

I started out supporting Biden and Richardson, as they were the 2 best guys on the issues. I had always liked Biden, so when he announced, I was with him from early 2007. Only politician I have ever contributed to, and I expect it to remain that way! In early 2008, with Biden out, I was praying that Richardson would somehow catch on.

When the familiar Hillary vs Obama debate was being decided based on what people thought was the better first or who had the better personality, I went to work on the issues. I first figured Obama was more electable, as he had been endorsed by numerous red state Democrats.

Moving onto the debates, I was very happy that Obama refused to engage in the same kind of economic pandering as Hillary on trade, the gas tax and health care. I thought he was being practical and giving the best, most economically reasonable answers, even if they were tough to hear. It repulsed me that the recently very moderate to even right wing on economics Clinton was now trying to convince Ohio and Pennsylvania Democrats that she was taking John Edwards' or Dick Gephardt's place as the economic populist. Especially when she was on record as clearly knowing that NAFTA was not responsible for nearly the amount of job loss people claimed and that suspending the gas tax would help nothing but poll numbers and save no one money.

Obama was going for a clean, practical break from Bush, while Clinton was running around telling everyone she would be something she had never been!

Of course, there were issue differences between Hillary and Obama, though the media thought otherwise.
Fascinating history. Richardson was a good guy-I remember liking the fact that he advocated pro-immigration changes. It was refreshing to hear that after years of people babbling about "closing the borders" and "building a fence" and all that crap.

I personally was for Kucinich and Obama from the start. Kucinich and I were the most in synch in terms of policy, but unfortunately he didn't get to stick around long. Obama I admired because he was one of the few that had been fully against the Iraq war from the start, which told me that he'd be more likely to weigh all the options before just throwing us into a new conflict. He didn't buy into all the smoke and mirrors the Bush administration had been throwing out in regards to that war, and I found that really comforting (that was the biggest reason I couldn't go for Hilary-she had originally supported the Iraq war, and given how deadset I was against that war...I just couldn't go for that). I also liked that he was trying to encourage the younger generations to give back more to their communities, he didn't dismiss our generation as being too "inexperienced" or unable to "get" what's going on. And his immigration policy and health care ideas were good, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Being 23, I also get lumped in with the "college student, idealist, for Obama because he is the young, hip candidate" crowd which pisses me off to no end. Myself and 69 million other Americans voted for the man after initial skepticism because he proved his ability to conduct himself in a calm, cool, reasoned and well thought out manner in the face of adversity. I was more than happy to pull the lever for the old, grey haired, Irish Biden in the primary, long before any of my classmates knew his name!
Haha, well, hey, good, it's your choice, after all, so go for it!

I admire that in Obama, too. I see some of the horrific signs people who are angry at him are holding up at these rallies, the Hitler comparisons and the guns and the racist slogans...I don't know how he still manages to keep calm and brush that off. I wouldn't have such a cool temper for very long if I saw that, I can tell you that much.

I definitely get what you mean about being lumped in like that. The media has a tendency to categorize people and tell us how we're likely to vote. Sorry, I've kinda got a mind of my own and I've got my own reasons why I vote for somebody. I would've voted for Obama irregardless of my age. It wasn't even a question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
LOL, I was only 13, at the time! I do remember how happy my Dad, who was a combat medic in Vietnam and Gore supporter, was that McCain was ripping Bush apart and calling him out for defaming his war record and race baiting.

At the time, what struck me was that, no matter how enthusiastically you supported Bush, Bradley or Gore, you admired and respected John McCain. He was a man who stuck to his principles and was always classy.

You saw a truly heartwarming and refreshing glimpse of this when McCain conceded to Obama. It was 100% pure class, and I had not seen him like that since 2004 and certainly not since.

1 of 2 things happened that night:

1.)McCain told the right wing, Rove strategists to go fly a kite and called in his old team to write his speech for that night.

2.)McCain had a Karl Rove speech in front of him and decided to ignore it and speak from his own principles and values.
Indeed. It'd be so nice to see that McCain come back, or see other Republicans who are more like how he used to be. I'd be much more willing to listen to the Republicans if they moved back in that direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Funny how that works, isn't it?

And good for Obama for realizing this and not moving to the left when Hillary did it in the primaries!
Yeah. It's weird, because I know people on the left keep saying Obama should just go Bush-style with his policies (only in the other direction, of course), and while I agree with that in some respects, at the same time, I really do appreciate his continuous attempts at bipartisanship, even if it's unfortunately not working out as well for him as he wanted. I'd like to see it be proven that bipartisanship can work, even if just on one issue.

Besides that, I sometimes wonder if there isn't a method to his bipartisanship madness (i.e., "I'll keep publicly showing that I'm trying to reach across the aisle, the public can see the Republicans don't want to reciprocate, they'll get mad at them, and us Democrats can gain support").

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
It would be nice. Something has to give- we can't go on with one of our parties not even willing to discuss the issues in good faith and taking their cues from the extremist fringe!

The sad thing is I can not think of any sane Republican emerging in the next few years, certainly not right now, that would not get run out on a rail in the primary!

Just think what would happen if the 2000 version of John McCain came back with another name now! Telling the right they are wrong on campaign finance reform, wrong on immigration reform, wrong on global warming and wrong on tax cuts. He would be figuratively or even literally hung from the nearest tree! In 2000, not that long ago in the grand scheme of things, he won a good amount of primaries and had a very serious shot at the nomination. So much so that Bush had to race bait in South Carolina and attack his heroic war record. They did the same to John Kerry because they were afraid of him. Kerry was just stupid not to respond, and that did him in, but rest assured, they attacked him because they actually feared him, knew he was no special interest lackey like Gephardt, pompous blow hard like Dean, fence sitter like Lieberman or lightweight like Edwards!

I digress, but look how effective and powerful Kerry is now(especially with Pakistan strategy and energy policy) and look where his primary opponents, especially Edwards are! John Kerry is the ultimate testament to how the smear machine can distort forever the image of a strong, smart, independent and effective leader.
Sad but true. That's the Democrats' biggest problem-they have the good ideas, they can easily fight back against those horrendous smear machine campaigns. But they don't. If I were a Democrat running this November, I could think of SOOOOOO many legitimate, factual arguments to use in my campaign against a Republican. I'd have the tape, the quotes in the paper, all that stuff, to prove it. I wouldn't need to get personal at all-the policy stuff alone should be enough to convince people.

That's the thing I think bugs me the most about the Republicans. It's bad enough that I can barely find one area where we might agree on something, but in terms of getting personal, they're just...mean. I mean, I know politics is dirty sometimes and people will shoot stuff back and forth, but the recent Republican party just gets...really low. Deeply, offensively so (like the "illegitimate black child" thing with McCain). And I don't understand that. I don't understand why people have to get THAT cruel, and I don't trust people who are that big of creeps to run anything.

Though to be fair, it's not just the Republicans. In 2008 in Colorado, a Republican candidate, who was Muslim, was getting swastikas painted on his campaign signs. I couldn't support the Democrat because of that (to be fair, I don't think she herself advocated this, but her campaign wasn't making more noise to stop it, so...).

But yeah, so long as this "purity test" thing keeps happening in the Republican Party, so long as they keep on the current mindset they have...rest assured this is one person who won't be voting for them anytime soon.

Nice discussion going on here amongst everybody. Talk to you again soon, too!

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 12:34 PM   #606
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Fair enough - a tax rate of zero would yield zero revenue.
I see you have no interest in bringing reason into the tax issues. Well then...
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 05:22 PM   #607
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post

Fascinating history. Richardson was a good guy-I remember liking the fact that he advocated pro-immigration changes. It was refreshing to hear that after years of people babbling about "closing the borders" and "building a fence" and all that crap.

I personally was for Kucinich and Obama from the start. Kucinich and I were the most in synch in terms of policy, but unfortunately he didn't get to stick around long. Obama I admired because he was one of the few that had been fully against the Iraq war from the start, which told me that he'd be more likely to weigh all the options before just throwing us into a new conflict. He didn't buy into all the smoke and mirrors the Bush administration had been throwing out in regards to that war, and I found that really comforting (that was the biggest reason I couldn't go for Hilary-she had originally supported the Iraq war, and given how deadset I was against that war...I just couldn't go for that). I also liked that he was trying to encourage the younger generations to give back more to their communities, he didn't dismiss our generation as being too "inexperienced" or unable to "get" what's going on. And his immigration policy and health care ideas were good, too.
Yes, and Richardson was the only border state guy in the primary, so he knew what he was talking about on the issue. Same with McCain on the Republican side, he, very admirably, has never given up on his sane stance on immigration.

Kucinich is a smart guy, I admire him personally, though he is well to the left of my views. Given the fact that the public had long since realized that Bush was bullshitting on the Iraq war by 2008, Kucinich was a victim, not of his message, which was almost single handedly outrage over the fact that Romney, McCain and Rudy wanted to continue it, but of the sad way we choose candidates to hold the highest office in the world.

Quote:
Yeah. It's weird, because I know people on the left keep saying Obama should just go Bush-style with his policies (only in the other direction, of course), and while I agree with that in some respects, at the same time, I really do appreciate his continuous attempts at bipartisanship, even if it's unfortunately not working out as well for him as he wanted. I'd like to see it be proven that bipartisanship can work, even if just on one issue.

Besides that, I sometimes wonder if there isn't a method to his bipartisanship madness (i.e., "I'll keep publicly showing that I'm trying to reach across the aisle, the public can see the Republicans don't want to reciprocate, they'll get mad at them, and us Democrats can gain support").
You are 100% right, Obama should keep reaching out and his doing so is certainly part of an organized chaos type method. He can say "hey, look at all my good faith efforts, and look at the Republicans stamping their feet, taking their ball and going home after saying NO to all of them."

As for going Bush-like as some suggest, I think they are suggesting TACTICS, not ideological extremes. Bush used reconciliation plenty, passed things with nowhere near 60 as he never came close to having 60 Republicans. I mean, Obama gets tagged as a dictator for passing something with, God forbid, a majority of Congress much bigger than Bush ever had and just short of 60 votes in the Senate. The 'liberal" media has gone along with this- remember them asking Obama and his advisers if they were concerned about going forward without 60 votes, or without any Republican support? Sickening. They never called Bush out for trying to eliminate the entire filibuster over a couple of neanderthal judges that Scott Brown type Republicans were repulsed by.

Speaking of Scott Brown, listening to the media and the cowardly lion Democrats, you would think that his victory had ushered in a Republican majority of 41 votes.

Obama has already gone Bush, and rightfully so, to pass the stimulus and health care. I support that wholeheartedly, and could care less that not a single Republican supported it. Because Republicans don't support it does not make it an extreme leftist bill. In fact, health care reform was loaded with Republican ideas.

What I commended Obama for doing was not moving left on trade and health care to match Hillary in the primaries, and I continue to commend him for passing moderate health and student loan reforms while proposing a modest climate change bill(not a carbon tax). Contrast that to Bush who never won anywhere near as many popular or electoral votes as Obama coming in in 2005 after squeaking to re election and proposing to get rid of Social Security. That was after he boasted of having a ton of "political capital" on election night. The media nodded. When Obama told Eric Cantor that he was getting his way on the Making Work Pay tax cut because he won the election, Cantor cried "dictator" and the media went and ran with it.

Either way, Katrina and Iraq did not take down the Bush Presidency, they just put the final nail in a Presidency that had already been BADLY wounded by over reaching on Social Security!


Quote:
Nice discussion going on here amongst everybody. Talk to you again soon, too!

Angela
Yes, great discussion on (almost) everyone's account!

Angela, see you around, look forward to your posts!
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 05:34 PM   #608
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 01:15 AM
It is so ironic, because as Irving pointed out a couple pages back, Bush actually did things that can be construed as dictatorial, while it is Obama that gets compared to these people much, much more. I have never heard Obama say "God wants me to be President," nor have I seen him just tell everyone he is getting his way and too bad about it. Many more people think that Obama is ignoring the people than thought Bush was ignoring the people, even though he was openly flouting laws and trying to repeal the most popular and effective government initiative ever. No health care discussion this Congress came anywhere near the closed door, not let Democrats into the hearing room approach Bush took to any number of issues, notably Iraq War oversight and the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.

According to the media, it is ok and MAINSTREAM to make claims that Obama is a dictator for not getting 60 votes on something, or going forward with an agenda he was ELECTED to carry out! Yes, unlike Bush, he told us exactly what he would be doing when elected and then did it. Bush never mentioned getting rid of social security. However, the media routinely portrayed the people claiming this about Bush as the far left fringe.

I am NOT saying the media SHOULD BE LIBERAL, I am just saying the idea that it is is a complete myth!
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 09:43 PM   #609
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
If Obama made claim #1 even remotely resembling this, he would, and this may not be a nice or pleasant thing for me to say or even imply, be ASSASSINATED by some right wing militia within a week!
Do you really believe this or is it mere rhetoric?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 09:46 PM   #610
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
According to the media, it is ok and MAINSTREAM to make claims that Obama is a dictator for not getting 60 votes on something, or going forward with an agenda he was ELECTED to carry out!

I could be mistaken, but I think most of the public outrage was not about the lack of 60 votes - but the bill itself.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 11:22 PM   #611
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
I see you have no interest in bringing reason into the tax issues. Well then...

I apologize, as it appears that once again my attempt at humor has fallen flat. I thought it was obvious that most of us here seek that ever-elusive “equilibrium.”

Perhaps some of the discontent from fiscal conservatives is that the historic average of tax revenue to GDP for the Unites States in 18 percent and we are now approaching 30 percent (with a healthy concern it will rise well beyond that in the next ten to twenty years).
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 11:34 PM   #612
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Do you really believe this or is it mere rhetoric?
Well, why don't you try and figure that out given the militia, violent, foaming at the mouth, very scary element that is popping up in this country?

It has been covered by the mainstream media extensively with the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The nuts wanted him killed for being on an educational board with some guy who was a radical 40 years ago, what do you think would happen if he claimed to be a war hero like Reagan did?

Have you followed the news about the secret service investigating record assassination threats?

I am not answering your question, you decide!
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 11:39 PM   #613
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I could be mistaken, but I think most of the public outrage was not about the lack of 60 votes - but the bill itself.
Well, tell me what the specific provisions of the bill were then that you and others were so outraged by?

If you take the main individual provisions out of the bill and poll them, as has been done extensively, you will find the American people support it by 55 to as much as 65-67%.

People were against how it was characterized- death panels, government takeover, rationing, etc.

Again, people had no idea what was in the bill. Still don't. I talked to a hard core opponent tonight at the gym who had no idea that there were cost containment provisions in the bill!

Remember, most people think Judge Judy is a Supreme Court Justice and have no idea where they even are located any more due to GPS devices.

Democrats are to blame here too- they never defended the bill's individual provisions until the last few weeks before passage. They just talked about a general bill that had already been framed by the Republicans as bad(Limbaugh, etc) all summer while Obama made the dumbest move of his Presidency by attacking a hard working cop doing his job!
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 11:44 PM   #614
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
It has been covered by the mainstream media extensively with the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Could you please inform us how many militias were charged with this single act of violence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Have you followed the news about the secret service investigating record assassination threats?
I don’t put it past either side to take full advantage of a few whackos.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 12:10 AM   #615
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I apologize, as it appears that once again my attempt at humor has fallen flat. I thought it was obvious that most of us here seek that ever-elusive “equilibrium.”

Perhaps some of the discontent from fiscal conservatives is that the historic average of tax revenue to GDP for the Unites States in 18 percent and we are now approaching 30 percent (with a healthy concern it will rise well beyond that in the next ten to twenty years).
Sense of humor fallen flat, no.

Sense of reality, yes.

Where in God's creation do you get such b.s. like we have gone from 18% revenue/GDP to 30%?

Please. I will give you the numbers first, and then we will go through why this makes no sense from a common, practical, think for 2 seconds before posting standpoint!

US Revenue to federal government from taxes(2009): $1,976.8 billion(close to $2 trillion)

US GDP, 2009: $14,258.2 billion(around 14 trillion)

Divide the 2 and get 13.86%!

Government Taxes and Revenue in United States in 2009 - Federal State Local Charts

Now, turn our brains on and get off the Heritage website, and why does this not make sense, this 30% claim?

1.)Major recession. How could revenues be exploding by 12 percentage points relative to GDP when we have been starved for them?

2.)The heavy Reagan tax increases, the modest GHW tax increase and the moderate to heavy Clinton tax increase combined did not change the 18.2% more than a few tenths of a percentage point at one time or another.

So for this to happen as you say it has, Obama would have had to have secretly and without anyone knowing, passed a tax increase bigger than any other tax increase combined into law already!

What is the reality? Of course, there has been no tax increase!

The only tax changes under Obama so far have been tax cuts- most in the dreaded stimulus!

Revenues have been extremely slow due to the recession and early stages of the recovery.

So again, common sense tells you that if we are at around 18% and revenue growth is extremely weak while the tax side of the equation is being cut down, that this number will stay the same or drop. (numerator getting smaller, denominator still getting bigger, though not by as much as usual).

When statistics you get don't sound right, run them through the little common sense and basic math test that you no doubt possess as the holder of an MBA!

All the health care increases, which together amount to modest little blips that have had similar counterparts in every administration(Reagan called them "revenue enhancers, Bush II called them "fees") are taking effect years from now.

The only Obama proposal that is taking effect any time soon, most likely, is the retaining of the estate tax at current levels at the end of this year and letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000. They will stay in place for everyone else.

The independent, nonpartisan tax policy center has estimated that, even if all of Obama's proposals go into effect, the 18.2% average as a % of GDP will not be going anywhere and is in fact lower than in the Reagan years!

Obama is proposing tax increases on a very small segment of the population, which taken together, will leave us 11 points lower than the top income tax rate that prevailed for most of the Reagan years and the top Capital Gains rate 8 points lower than what Reagan left it at!

Nothing even proposed by Obama, never mind what has already been signed into law and put into effect as you claim, would bring us anywhere the 30% that you pulled seemingly out of nowhere.

One line talking points and broad brushing as to what and who a fiscal conservative is may work on other posters here. With me, you will need the facts.

And some common sense.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama General Discussion diamond Free Your Mind Archive 1009 06-28-2010 01:03 AM
Sarah Palin resigns as Governor VintagePunk Free Your Mind Archive 1005 04-05-2010 05:30 PM
Elevation Canada 8th Anniversary Party February 19th bradyvox Interference Gatherings 22 02-20-2010 05:30 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com