Did the GOP threw away any shot for mid elections?

[macfan881]

After tonights Speech Obama gave on Healthcare and the showings by Joe Lewis Liar shout and The Shots of Republics either looking dead board,tossing up signs ignoring the President, and than Having the GOP respons being the same old stuff we been hearing since november did the Republicans throw away any chance of getting majority back?

I think if this passes and no rep vote for it i think this willl spell doom for the GOP. I think thats just my opinon anyway what bout urs?

[Nugget]

I'm more concerned with actual governance than with future elections. I wish more Republicans agreed with me on that front. The nation faces some really significant problems and treating politics like it's a team sport isn't fixing any of them. This is our country, not the Super Bowl.

[Zombie Acorn]

GOP will gain seats in the next election.

[Shivetya]

After tonights Speech Obama gave on Healthcare and the showings by Joe Lewis Liar shout and The Shots of Republics either looking dead board,tossing up signs ignoring the President, and than Having the GOP respons being the same old stuff we been hearing since november did the Republicans throw away any chance of getting majority back?

I think if this passes and no rep vote for it i think this willl spell doom for the GOP. I think thats just my opinon anyway what bout urs?

I think your dreaming a silly one , OK?

If anything there were probably people cheering in their seats at home over that. I can recall similar scenes of Democrats looking dour and disinterested when Bush ][ was speaking, but I know, that doesn't matter because he deserved it while Presidente "Present" deserves only adulation.

Yeah... laughable to think it cost them or this anything other than some press. Whats really going to be funny is how some elements of the press will bleat as if this is a turning point ignoring the crap that always goes on by people they favor.

Ole Presidente played the wealth envy card... whats next? Race card or is that for his myrmidons to use in his stead?

[freeny]

People voted Obama for "change", and for them, right or wrong, they see the GOP as in the way of that change. They see them as sore losers, selfish, and yes, even "crazy" stemming from things like the Obama school speach and last nights outburst.

The GOP, right or wrong, sees the Dems as some sort of Socialist regime that wants to take away all they have rightfully earned. Ironicly knocking them down to the same class of people they rely on to keep them "fortunate".

It could go either way. The country is obviously split hard. Most people are entrenched already. It will take another catastrophy to bring everyone back together unfortunately. But even then i doubt the GOP is secure enough to not play party politics...

What makes me believe the Dems will hold is that the GOP is still the same. It will take a long time to wash the Bush image from their hands. Just giving a few reminders of what they [Republicans] still have to offer will keep the Dems in power... Continuing to draw attention to that fact, like last night, keeps those memories fresh in the minds of voters who wanted them out. They see Obama working for change but the GOP is going out of thier way to stop it.

[fivepoint]

If only he had thrown his shoe at the president! Then you guys would have called him a hero!

In all seriousness though... although this may not have been the time and place, people have got to get more critical and more vocal against this HUGE GOVERNMENT president. Someone needs to stand up and say the truth to his face... Something, perhaps, like THIS! (bit.ly/3BZblW)

[jb1280]

If only he had thrown his shoe at the president! Then you guys would have called him a hero!

In all seriousness though... although this may not have been the time and place, people have got to get more critical and more vocal against this HUGE GOVERNMENT president. Someone needs to stand up and say the truth to his face... Something, perhaps, like THIS! (bit.ly/3BZblW)

It was absolutely not the place to do that. It was also the wrong thing to do.

If you want to cogently take on this administration, you can't call him a fascist, a communist, a Muslim, say he's going to form death panels, say he's going to indoctrinate small children, accuse him of not being a real citizen of the country, etc.

Leading opposition need to denounce these things and actually start talking policy.

[freeny]

If only he had thrown his shoe at the president! Then you guys would have called him a hero!

In all seriousness though... although this may not have been the time and place, people have got to get more critical and more vocal against this HUGE GOVERNMENT president. Someone needs to stand up and say the truth to his face... Something, perhaps, like THIS! (bit.ly/3BZblW)

Please tell me you did not just equate the two? :eek:

[leekohler]

Please tell me you did not just equate the two? :eek:

Of course he did. What's new?

That said- The GOP aren't doing themselves any favors right now. They keep acting like this and they'll alienate even more people. I say let them.

[Rodimus Prime]

No they haven't. Remember public is very short sighted. Come election day the general public is not going to care what sad politian did 1 years before hand. Hell they will not care what they did 6 months before hand. They will only care what they have done recently. Close to the election day the more it matters. Farther away from it less it matters.

Anything over 1 year before hand is completely worthless.

This is part of the problem I see with our politics. They only care about staying in office not what is best so they pass bills that are great short term but have huge long term problems.

[Iscariot]

If only he had thrown his shoe at the president! Then you guys would have called him a hero!

In all seriousness though... although this may not have been the time and place, people have got to get more critical and more vocal against this HUGE GOVERNMENT president. Someone needs to stand up and say the truth to his face... Something, perhaps, like THIS! (bit.ly/3BZblW)

Could we get some responses from non-ridiculous conservatives please? I'm tired of defending an administration and a president I don't like simply because you guys can't seem to stop flat out lying.

[Kashchei]

Could we get some responses from non-ridiculous conservatives please? I'm tired of defending an administration and a president I don't like simply because you guys can't seem to stop flat out lying.


Several Churchill Quotes come to mind in response to your post (with which I completely agree).

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last"
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

The "loyal" opposition in this country is now a small but vocal minority of fanatics. There is no appeasing them since they have staked their future on steadfast opposition to the current administration. And while I don't wish to see an oligarchy rule this country, I do think that a well-functioning democracy is predicated on a well-informed and thoughtful electorate. I unfortunately cannot honestly describe Americans with these terms at present.

[fivepoint]

Please tell me you did not just equate the two? :eek:

Equate which two? Bush and Obama? Throwing shoes at someone and yelling 'liar!' Which are you concerned with? I just think it's funny how one day liberals are laughing at someone throwing a shoe at Bush, completely unconcerned with 'politeness, etc' and then today they're all up in arms about a congressman yelling. It's just hypocritical and hilarious!


Of course he did. What's new?

That said- The GOP aren't doing themselves any favors right now. They keep acting like this and they'll alienate even more people. I say let them.

Really, your analysis seems to fly in the face of polling data which shows support for Obama and the liberal healthcare plan dropping steadily. I'd say that their socialistic policies and drunken sailor spending are alienating even more people. Especially independents who are dramatically opposed to the healthcare plan as it sits now.


Could we get some responses from non-ridiculous conservatives please? I'm tired of defending an administration and a president I don't like simply because you guys can't seem to stop flat out lying.

Which flat out lie are you talking about? I think you just flat-out lied. I will say, I understand you 'defending an administration and a president you don't even like'. I found myself doing the very same under Bush. I disagreed with the man far more often than I agreed with him but the ridiculous attacks against him on this site made me defend him sometimes. Not fun.

[MyDesktopBroke]

The party in power has lost mid terms over the past two decades. Clinton lost democrat seats in congress after he failed to pass health reform.

Bush lost republican seats in 2006 because he started a war with the wrong country, sent 4000 Americans to their deaths, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, trampled the constitution, etc.

Either way, Obama will see an evening out in congress in 2010. People basically are always unhappy with the government. They think if they elect enough random people, eventually they will get some keepers.

[fivepoint]

The party in power has lost mid terms over the past two decades. Clinton lost democrat seats in congress after he failed to pass health reform.

Bush lost republican seats in 2006 because he started a war with the wrong country, sent 4000 Americans to their deaths, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, trampled the constitution, etc.

Either way, Obama will see an evening out in congress in 2010. People basically are always unhappy with the government. They think if they elect enough random people, eventually they will get some keepers.

A lot of wisdom here. Unfortunately the implication though is that we're hopelessly vacillating between two parties who aren't doing us any good. In many ways, they're incredibly similar. Both refuse to subscribe to a truly constitutional view of the government, both are pro intervention, pro war, pro big government, pro big spending, pro deficit spending, pro entitlement programs, and a whole lot more.

People thought BO was going to bring change, real change, but all he has brought us is MORE indebtedness, MORE economic struggle, MORE big government, MORE war in Afghanistan, MORE struggle with world powers including North Korea and Iran, MORE taxation in times of economic depression, MORE MORE MORE. It's sickening.

[leekohler]

Really, your analysis seems to fly in the face of polling data which shows support for Obama and the liberal healthcare plan dropping steadily. I'd say that their socialistic policies and drunken sailor spending are alienating even more people. Especially independents who are dramatically opposed to the healthcare plan as it sits now.




Really? Google is your friend, ya know...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/cnn-poll-two-thirds-of-speech-watchers-favor-obamas-proposals/

Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.

My analysis flies in the face of what again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

[kavika411]

After tonights Speech Obama gave on Healthcare and the showings by Joe Lewis Liar shout and The Shots of Republics either looking dead board,tossing up signs ignoring the President, and than Having the GOP respons being the same old stuff we been hearing since november did the Republicans throw away any chance of getting majority back?

I think if this passes and no rep vote for it i think this willl spell doom for the GOP. I think thats just my opinon anyway what bout urs?

I thought it was a foregone conclusion, unnecessary to challenge, that Republicans have destroyed themselves, will never regain power, are dead in the water, couldn't change a lightbulb, don't have the wherewithall to tie their own shoelaces, have resorted to failing tactics, couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, couldn't be elected to Safety Patrol, and even their mommas don't love 'em. Now there is suddenly talk of their chances of taking back a majority of Congress? I thought we'd been taught Republicans are so dense and failing they couldn't be elected to dog catcher.

[Nugget]

I'd say that their socialistic policies and drunken sailor spending are alienating even more people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Shivetya]

I thought it was a foregone conclusion, unnecessary to challenge, that Republicans have destroyed themselves, will never regain power, are dead in the water, couldn't change a lightbulb, don't have the wherewithall to tie their own shoelaces, have resorted to failing tactics, couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, couldn't be elected to Safety Patrol, and even their mommas don't love 'em. Now there is suddenly talk of their chances of taking back a majority of Congress? I thought we'd been taught Republicans are so dense and failing they couldn't be elected to dog catcher.

Well its not like they could do it on their own, they need an enabler, an ally to help them get into power. Just like 1994 its going to be a President over reaching and causing independents to switch their support. Throw in the fact that Obama has done to change Washington except to exaggerate all that is bad, and I figure the Republicans are going to have to work at not winning

[bradl]

If it helps everyone to know, Joe Wilson's smegup definitely helped his opponent. Just between last night and now, his opponent in 2010, Rob Miller, raised $200,000 for his campaign, just from the shout alone (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/09/joe_wilson_amiable_outward_man.html).

Wilson has a lot to make up. And I will leave the race card out of this, especially because it isn't right/fair to play 'guilty by association', as he was an aide to Thurmond. Wilson will stay or go by his own merits.

In the end, his constituents are not happy with him. Disagree with the POTUS, talk it out with the POTUS, but you do not disrespect the office of the POTUS, which an elected congressman did.

BL.

[leekohler]

If it helps everyone to know, Joe Wilson's smegup definitely helped his opponent. Just between last night and now, his opponent in 2010, Rob Miller, raised $200,000 for his campaign, just from the shout alone (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/09/joe_wilson_amiable_outward_man.html).

Wilson has a lot to make up. And I will leave the race card out of this, especially because it isn't right/fair to play 'guilty by association', as he was an aide to Thurmond. Wilson will stay or go by his own merits.

In the end, his constituents are not happy with him. Disagree with the POTUS, talk it out with the POTUS, but you do not disrespect the office of the POTUS, which an elected congressman did.

BL.

Saw that myself. He did a lot of damage with that one.

[MyDesktopBroke]

Especially since the bill is very clear about giving federal money to fund treatment for people who are living in America without proper citizenship: you can't.

[Zombie Acorn]

People voted Obama for "change", and for them, right or wrong, they see the GOP as in the way of that change. They see them as sore losers, selfish, and yes, even "crazy" stemming from things like the Obama school speach and last nights outburst.


Lets not speak for all people here, after Bush being in office for 8 years it was amazing the republicans were even allowed to run for president.

[fivepoint]

Really? Google is your friend, ya know...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/cnn-poll-two-thirds-of-speech-watchers-favor-obamas-proposals/



My analysis flies in the face of what again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

Hahaha, oh Lee... I'm really glad you posted that CNN link. Maybe you should have read a bit further! "The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole." Hahahaha! What a fantastic source of information. Amazingly, CNN waits until the last paragraph of the story to share that juicy tidbit. Nope, they're not biased at all.

Again, among independents (the group that really matters here since Dems are wildly supportive and repubs are wildly unsupportive) the proposed healthcare options are quite unpopular.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/8mv2z-t0cek9vzqoojonda.gif


Here is some more:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/sep/09/poll-approval-ratings-drop-obama-health-care-plan/life-health/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/18/health/main5248609.shtml
http://minx.cc/?post=290780
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8385581
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/poll-health-care-support-falling/1462278463


Sorry Lee, even if you get ALL of your news from the Huffington Post you should have at least HEARD about the massive decline in support for Universal Healthcare. Why do you think BO even held this speech before congress? He's losing, and he's flailing trying to do anything possible to keep the ship from sinking.

[fivepoint]

Lets not speak for all people here, after Bush being in office for 8 years it was amazing the republicans were even allowed to run for president.

But that's exactly his point. We hate admin after admin, congress after congress, and keep trying to replace them with the exact same people who stand for the exact same views.

[leekohler]

Hahaha, oh Lee... I'm really glad you posted that CNN link. Maybe you should have read a bit further! "The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole." Hahahaha! What a fantastic source of information. Amazingly, CNN waits until the last paragraph of the story to share that juicy tidbit. Nope, they're not biased at all.

Again, among independents (the group that really matters here since Dems are wildly supportive and repubs are wildly unsupportive) the proposed healthcare options are quite unpopular.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/8mv2z-t0cek9vzqoojonda.gif


Here is some more:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/sep/09/poll-approval-ratings-drop-obama-health-care-plan/life-health/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/18/health/main5248609.shtml
http://minx.cc/?post=290780
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8385581
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/poll-health-care-support-falling/1462278463


Sorry Lee, even if you get ALL of your news from the Huffington Post you should have at least HEARD about the massive decline in support for Universal Healthcare. Why do you think BO even held this speech before congress? He's losing, and he's flailing trying to do anything possible to keep the ship from sinking.

Hahaha, fivepoint! I think I'll just start all my posts like this from now on, since you can show no respect or have any sort of civil discussion.

The only reason I posted the link to Huffington Post (which I don't read) is because it simplified the info listed on surveyUSA site, which I also linked you to. And trust me- health care reform is going to happen.

[Iscariot]

throwing a shoe at Bush, completely unconcerned with 'politeness, etc' and then today they're all up in arms about a congressman yelling. It's just hypocritical and hilarious!

If someone threw a shoe at Obama I would thoroughly enjoy it. But then, we pie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieing) our politicians up here (including one Prime Minister).
Which flat out lie are you talking about? I think you just flat-out lied.

Van Jones is an ex-con just off the top of my head.
I disagreed with the man far more often than I agreed with him but the ridiculous attacks against him on this site made me defend him sometimes. Not fun.

Then don't you see the hypocrisy in dishonest and blatant partisan attacks on Obama? The fanatical charges of socialism, the distortion of the public option on health care, the intentional polarization of issues to frame it in a conservative vs. liberal light? You cast blame "liberals" and "you guys" for polarizing issues, but then you continuously make generalizing statements about liberals:

I just think it's funny how one day liberals are laughing at someone throwing a shoe at Bush, completely unconcerned with 'politeness, etc' and then today they're all up in arms about a congressman yelling. It's just hypocritical and hilarious!
It's amazing how not one single liberal in this entire thread
I think it speaks to the hypocrisy of the liberals
Bush spent like a liberal.

You have made 1,052, and refer to "liberal" in them roughly 107 times, 10% of your total posts, much of that negative and derogatory.
I've made 2,217 posts and refer to "conservative" roughly 42 times, less than 2%, most of those are quotes in which someone else used the term, and I've used it a negative or derogatory fashion about twice.
I've actually referred to "liberal" more.
Even Leekohler, who you much malign, is a very outspoken liberal, and who does use "conservative" negatively, has mentioned it in barely more than 3% of his posts.

Might want to examine the shattered pieces of your own glass house before you throw any stones.

[fivepoint]

If someone threw a shoe at Obama I would thoroughly enjoy it. But then, we pie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieing) our politicians up here (including one Prime Minister).

Well, then I suppose we could laugh together. Unfortunately you're sort of skirting around the issue. It doesn't matter if you're not involved in the hypocricy, because many others are.


Van Jones is an ex-con just off the top of my head.

Sounds like a mistake to me, a piece of misinformation, not a lie. And of all the information that's been shared here about Van Jones, if that's the only piece of falsehood you can find, I'd say the point has been well made!



Then don't you see the hypocrisy in dishonest and blatant partisan attacks on Obama? The fanatical charges of socialism, the distortion of the public option on health care, the intentional polarization of issues to frame it in a conservative vs. liberal light? You cast blame "liberals" and "you guys" for polarizing issues, but then you continuously make generalizing statements about liberals:


My posts have nothing to do with being 'partisan', I'm certainly not a supporter of the republicans if that's what you're insinuating. If this was about POLITICS wouldn't I be using the words 'democrat' more?

For the record, Obama does support socialist policies, this is not a fanatical charge, but rather a well documented factual certainty. The public option does not need to be distorted, it's become unpopular under it's own weight. Like Obama said, every president since Teddy Roosevelt has been trying to pass this legislation and it fails each and every time, for a very important reason. It's unconstitutional, socialistic, and doesn't represent the values (such as liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, pursuit of wealth) of the citizens of the United States of America. Add on top of that in 2009 our Trillions and Trillions of dollars in National debt, collapsing economy, slipping support of populous, falling dollar, increasing personal and governmental indebtedness... and this year isn't looking any better than past years!




You have made 1,052, and refer to "liberal" in them roughly 107 times, 10% of your total posts, much of that negative and derogatory.
I've made 2,217 posts and refer to "conservative" roughly 42 times, less than 2%, most of those are quotes in which someone else used the term, and I've used it a negative or derogatory fashion about twice.
I've actually referred to "liberal" more.
Even Leekohler, who you much malign, is a very outspoken liberal, and who does use "conservative" negatively, has mentioned it in barely more than 3% of his posts.

Might want to examine the shattered pieces of your own glass house before you throw any stones.

Seems like sort of a ridiculous thing to keep track of, and perhaps even more ridiculous to respond to such things... but, what the heck! I don't make generalizing statements about liberals, I make accurate statements about the liberal worldview. Liberal has a definition, if you look it up you will see that people who choose that name for themselves tend to have the viewpoints I am criticizing them for.

As for the rate at which I discuss liberals, much of that has to do with the fact that conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, etc. are vastly outnumbered in these forums. It may have to do with the fact that I less often refer to democrats where as you and Lee openly discuss republicans. (to follow in your footsteps I did a quick search: Lee has said republican 217 times, I've said democrat 17) I tend to discuss worldviews as opposed to political parties. It may also have to do with me spending a higher percentage of my posts in the PRSI forum than other posters. It may have to do with my honesty and being willing to discuss the worldview I'm opposed to. I really don't know, but what I do know is that your time was completely wasted running searches on how often I use the word liberal. Liberal, liberal, liberal. There's a few more for you.

[leekohler]

Sounds like a mistake to me, a piece of misinformation, not a lie.

Next time, do your research istead of relying on Glenn Beck to do it for you and you won't have to be worried about being called on inflammatory rhetoric and yes, lies.


For the record, Obama does support socialist policies, this is not a fanatical charge, but rather a well documented factual certainty.

Really? Please list all of these "socialist" policies. And if you even try to go there with the bailouts, we'll call you on Bush. He's the one who initiated the bailouts of banks and the auto industry. You can't expect everything to change overnight.

[Iscariot]

Well, then I suppose we could laugh together. Unfortunately you're sort of skirting around the issue.

How can I be skirting around the issue when it's hypothetical? If somebody does throw a shoe at Obama (or for that matter, pies him), if the members here express a level of outrage that's completely disproportionate to the fanfare expressed when Bush dodged a shoe, then I'll be first in line to point it out.
Sounds like a mistake to me, a piece of misinformation, not a lie.

there's no excuse for being so poorly informed that a 30-second jaunt at Wikipedia would clear it up. To be so misinformed in a thread of your own creation shows either an inability or an unwillingness to fact check. So your choice, then, deliberately dishonest or irresponsibly lazy.
Seems like sort of a ridiculous thing to keep track of, and perhaps even more ridiculous to respond to such things... but, what the heck! I don't make generalizing statements about liberals, I make accurate statements about the liberal worldview. Liberal has a definition, if you look it up you will see that people who choose that name for themselves tend to have the viewpoints I am criticizing them for.

No you don't, but even if you did it would be entirely irrelevant. The issues are issues irrespective of what liberals and conservatives think, and you seem to be either unwilling or unable to stick to the issues without making it about ideology.

[fivepoint]

Really? Please list all of these "socialist" policies. And if you even try to go there with the bailouts, we'll call you on Bush. He's the one who initiated the bailouts of banks and the auto industry. You can't expect everything to change overnight.

Imagine that... bringing up Bush. So let me get this straight... If I accurately portray Obama as promoting socialist policies (lets just run with the bailout one) but Bush supported the same policy, that somehow makes it ok? Or something that someone like me can't criticize him about?

I criticized Bush about the bailout, Obama is worse.
I criticized Bush about the expansion of government, Obama is worse.
I criticized Bush about the Military Industrial Complex, Obama is just as bad.
I criticized Bush about entitlement programs, Obama is worse.
I criticized Bush about open borders, Obama is worse.
I criticized Bush about the Patriot Act, Obama is worse.

You constantly referencing back to Bush and using that as a reason that we can't criticize Obama is ludicrous... and I think you know it.



How can I be skirting around the issue when it's hypothetical? If somebody does throw a shoe at Obama (or for that matter, pies him), if the members here express a level of outrage that's completely disproportionate to the fanfare expressed when Bush dodged a shoe, then I'll be first in line to point it out.

How about all of the people on here who are up in arms about it? The liberal blogosphere is calling for this man's head! I was simply pointing out the hypocricy... why did you find the need to go after me for it?



No you don't, but even if you did it would be entirely irrelevant. The issues are issues irrespective of what liberals and conservatives think, and you seem to be either unwilling or unable to stick to the issues without making it about ideology.

My opinions, my thoughts on issues, and my worldview are all based on my ideaology and core beliefs. I suspect yours are as well. You've got to be able to adapt and mold them to real-world situations, but maintaining principles is equally important.

[abijnk]

How can I be skirting around the issue when it's hypothetical? If somebody does throw a shoe at Obama (or for that matter, pies him), if the members here express a level of outrage that's completely disproportionate to the fanfare expressed when Bush dodged a shoe, then I'll be first in line to point it out.


To be on equal ground I think you should qualify that the potential thrower of the shoe at Obama needs to be a citizen of a country that Obama invaded and waged war in for several years. Just sayin'...

EDIT:

How about all of the people on here who are up in arms about it? The liberal blogosphere is calling for this man's head! I was simply pointing out the hypocricy... why did you find the need to go after me for it?

I think he was right to call you out on it. There is no comparison here. What happened last night was a member of our government calling another member of our government a liar because he disagrees with him on a policy matter. The Bush incident was entirely different. An Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at Bush as a sign of disrespect because he invaded that journalists country and was directly responsible for the death of many of his fellow countrymen. Where is the comparison? While both actions were indisputably rude the motivations behind those actions are so entirely different that you simply can't equate the two.

[leekohler]

Imagine that... bringing up Bush. So let me get this straight... If I accurately portray Obama as promoting socialist policies (lets just run with the bailout one) but Bush supported the same policy, that somehow makes it ok? Or something that someone like me can't criticize him about?

I criticized Bush about the bailout, Obama is worse.

When did you criticize Bush on this matter and in what way is Obama worse?

I criticized Bush about the expansion of government, Obama is worse.

When did you criticize Bush on this matter and in what way is Obama worse?


I criticized Bush about the Military Industrial Complex, Obama is just as bad.

Obama has not invaded a country pre-emptively. Iraq withdrawals have begun and Guantanamo is in the process of being closed. He is not just as bad as Bush.
I criticized Bush about entitlement programs, Obama is worse.

When did you criticize Bush on this matter and in what way is Obama worse?


I criticized Bush about open borders, Obama is worse.

When did you criticize Bush on this matter and in what way is Obama worse?

I criticized Bush about the Patriot Act, Obama is worse.

When did you criticize Bush on this matter and in what way is Obama worse?


You constantly referencing back to Bush and using that as a reason that we can't criticize Obama is ludicrous... and I think you know it.

That's not it at all. The point is that all of these things started with Bush. You can't expect them to all magically disappear with Obama.




How about all of the people on here who are up in arms about it? The liberal blogosphere is calling for this man's head! I was simply pointing out the hypocricy... why did you find the need to go after me for it?

What abiyng87 said.


My opinions, my thoughts on issues, and my worldview are all based on my ideaology and core beliefs. I suspect yours are as well. You've got to be able to adapt and mold them to real-world situations, but maintaining principles is equally important.

Mine are based on evidence, facts and the real world. Mine are based on what works, not what I wish would work according to an ideology.

[blackfox]

It's unconstitutional, socialistic, and doesn't represent the values (such as liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, pursuit of wealth) of the citizens of the United States of America.



.

To be fair, aren't the values of the citizens of the United States ever-changing, as the citizenry does. The US is a nation of immigrants. Large swaths of Citizens of European descent (eg Scandinavian) were a driving force behind the New Deal for example. Tax Rates were as high as 90% up until the late 70's (iirc). The country didn't collapse or fall apart because of high taxes and big government programs then - and these measures had popular support for decades. All of this, and the US became an economic powerhouse during these times.

To be clear, I am not advocating a 90% tax rate, or huge Government programs necessarily - just pointing out that these "socialist" policies are also a legacy of the US and it's citizenry and a reflection of their values - as much as the values I quoted from you.

[NT1440]

What a lot of you seem to forget is that although Obama's speech was physically to congress last night, it was for the American people. The GOP apparently didn't understand that or just didn't care, they embarassed themselves in front of millions with that remark and it only goes to continue the legacy of leaving a bad taste in the People's mouth.

While the Dems may not play clean all the time, currently the GOP looks to the American people like stubborn mules whose only justification still continues to be their talking points that constantly get debunked. Then again, its the same philosophy they've had for years, if we repeat it enough on the airwaves, it becomes true to the watcher. It's dirty and dishonest politics and frankly both sides need to clean up their act and get back to their jobs of thinking of the People of our country. That said, anyone that still maintains that this kind of tactic is used evenly across the board or at the same scale from both parties is just not admitting the truth to themselves.

How bout we give a **** about the people and not our seats in congress?

[barkomatic]

Equate which two? Bush and Obama? Throwing shoes at someone and yelling 'liar!' Which are you concerned with? I just think it's funny how one day liberals are laughing at someone throwing a shoe at Bush, completely unconcerned with 'politeness, etc' and then today they're all up in arms about a congressman yelling. It's just hypocritical and hilarious!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the man who threw the shoe at Bush was a nutty Iraqi journalist--and he was immediately arrested. The man who called Obama a liar during his speech is a U.S. Congressman. There is a big difference, and many prominent Republicans agree. It was childish act and only serves to further polarize people.

[NT1440]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the man who threw the shoe at Bush was a nutty Iraqi journalist--and he was immediately arrested. The man who called Obama a liar during his speech is a U.S. Congressman. There is a big difference, and many prominent Republicans agree. It was childish act and only serves to further polarize people.

It should also be noted that shoe throwing in that culture is a widely known form of showing your discontent with someone. It's not really widely accepted here that you can call someone a liar on a national stage, when that claim isn't backed by reality.

[zap2]

I think your dreaming a silly one , OK?

If anything there were probably people cheering in their seats at home over that. I can recall similar scenes of Democrats looking dour and disinterested when Bush ][ was speaking, but I know, that doesn't matter because he deserved it while Presidente "Present" deserves only adulation.

Yeah... laughable to think it cost them or this anything other than some press. Whats really going to be funny is how some elements of the press will bleat as if this is a turning point ignoring the crap that always goes on by people they favor.

Ole Presidente played the wealth envy card... whats next? Race card or is that for his myrmidons to use in his stead?


It must be nice...you can just make stuff up to support your belief!(there has never been anyone as bad as Joe Wilson was last night..imagine if someone had yelled that at Bush over Iraq ) Also, none of this "race card" stuff...Obama has been very very good on that front. So don't pretends like he's been using it.


That said, I don't think they'll lose only because of this...ideally good healthcare reform gets past, those who supported it(regardless of party) will get some votes, while those who played the same old games will get a nice boot out of washington

[NT1440]

I do think that the GOP will pick up a few seats, simply because a few Dems BARELY got in.

[Thomas Veil]

There are quite a few Republicans retiring in the 2010 election, so that already puts the Dems at a theoretical advantage. But that's not the reason I see the Dems breaking the pattern and holding onto or even gaining seats. I see it happening because no matter how low the Democrats' approval rating is, the Republicans' is much, much lower.

Last night certainly didn't help their image. They looked like petulant crybabies. Some of the reactions I've read from the GOP side (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/health.care/index.html) today sound like petulant crybabies:

"I thought the speech was partisan, uninformative, disingenuous and not likely to encourage those who have honest disagreements with him to be able to work toward some kind of common solution," said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Arizona.

Kyl complained that Obama had made it tougher to reach common ground by constantly referring to opponents' "unyielding ideological" arguments and "bogus claims."

"Nobody can have a disagreement with him based upon a valid difference of opinion," Kyl said. "It's always the other -- the motive of the other individual is a bogus motive."

That is the single biggest pot-calling-the-kettle-black statement I have ever read in my life. Obama made "unyielding ideological" arguments and "bogus claims"?? Look in the ********** mirror, Mr. Kyl, because you just described everything your party has been doing for the last three months. "Valid difference of opinion" my ass. Lies about death panels are not "valid differences of opinion".

So yeah, it may be a year out, but I have complete faith that guys like Kyl will not only be an ass, but continue to be an ass.

Could we get some responses from non-ridiculous conservatives please? I'm tired of defending an administration and a president I don't like simply because you guys can't seem to stop flat out lying.+1

The "loyal" opposition in this country is now a small but vocal minority of fanatics. There is no appeasing them since they have staked their future on steadfast opposition to the current administration.And that's the problem: with the exception of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and a handful of others, we don't have a Republican party anymore. We have a party of right wing fanatics masquerading as Republicans.

[Iscariot]

How about all of the people on here who are up in arms about it?

About what? The "liar" thing? There's no equivalence between the two, neverminding that throwing a shoe at somebody is awesome, and calling somebody a liar is pretty plain jane.
The liberal blogosphere is calling for this man's head! I was simply pointing out the hypocricy... why did you find the need to go after me for it?

Because I don't care what "liberals" think. As somebody from a liberal nation, I'm familiar with most of the arguments in favour of more socialized positions. I'm not looking for an echo chamber, I'm looking for people who will intelligently challenge my positions, my assumptions and my beliefs so that I can be better for it.
My opinions, my thoughts on issues, and my worldview are all based on my ideaology and core beliefs. I suspect yours are as well. You've got to be able to adapt and mold them to real-world situations, but maintaining principles is equally important.

The bottom line is that this is a member-driven forum, and the level of discourse here is entirely up to us as members. If you feel that the conservative or libertarian viewpoint is poorly represented then represent it better.

Disclaimer: if President Bush had been hit by the shoes it would not have been awesome; if anything the coolest part was Bush's excellent reflexes in dodging the shoes so deftly.

[NT1440]

Disclaimer: if President Bush had been hit by the shoes it would not have been awesome; if anything the coolest part was Bush's excellent reflexes in dodging the shoes so deftly.

+1 on that, he dodged the hell out of that thing.

I had no idea he was so athletic either, apparently hes got the fastest mile run out of any president!:eek:

[FrankieTDouglas]

Sticks and stones...

I didn't mind the outcry at all. If people are getting worked up about it, please, there are far more important things to care about than name calling. And I say this as someone who waited with excitement for years for Obama to run, voted for him, and now still support him. I'm one of those "liberals" who wants national healthcare. And yep, also someone who feels "eh" about someone calling my president a liar. Worse things have happened in the world.

[63dot]

On big issues before the vote, such as health care, both sides make huge stances and a lot of noise in the press. By the time something passes, everybody has their say and there is always compromise and nobody fully wins. The GOP look like idiots now and very disjointed but they will be organized for 2010. They can't realistically think they have a chance at a majority in Congress but they can work towards that goal.

It would take Obama being incredibly partisan (like the President before him) to make the voters mad enough to change the composition of Congress by next year. Remember that the Iraq War and the sluggish economy was a slow process which eventually got voters to toss out the GOP advantage in 2006. These hard feelings just don't turn around right away. It will take years of bad mistakes by the Democrats for the GOP to regain, but as politics has gone, the balance will once again switch.

It's a good thing that neither party stays in power too long. Obama has been more cooperative with his opposition than W so far, and when he passes health care, as he has the votes, he will have to make some compromise to keep it there. If health care is too unilateral and in favor of the Democrats, the GOP can call it all back in the future when they have the balance of power and then we all lose out.

[Iscariot]

I had no idea he was so athletic either, apparently hes got the fastest mile run out of any president!:eek:

I kind of wish he had talked about that more. I thought he was setting a good standard of physical health that could have been a good example for kids. His resting heart rate is 44.4 as well, which is mad respectable. A much better role model than Clinton.

[After G]

+1 on that, he dodged the hell out of that thing.

I had no idea he was so athletic either, apparently hes got the fastest mile run out of any president!:eek:Bush is faster than Obama?

You know, Obama being Kenyan and all ... :D :p

[Thomas Veil]

At the kickoff today to this weekend's big anti-health care reform rallies in Washington, D.C., FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey defended Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), saying, "Cut Mr. Wilson a little slack."

Armey said Obama started the liar talk when he said the idea of death panels is "a lie, plain and simple."

"So what's the rule here? President of the United of States can say you're liars and somebody else cannot? Give poor old Joe Wilson a break here," Armey said to reporters, according to the Washington Independent.Link (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/freedomworks-head-dick-armey-sympathizes-with-heckler-rep-wilson.php)

In a Facebook post responding to President Obama's speech last night, Sarah Palin said that Obama's debunking of the "death panel" smear -- which she has propagated -- showed a lack of civility:

"In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I've raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters," Palin wrote. "He called these concerns "bogus," "irresponsible," and "a lie" -- so much for civility."

Yes, Palin is saying Obama lacks civility. This from the politician who said this: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

As Greg Sargent notes, Palin also accused Obama in this post of demonizing the victims of the September 11 attacks, when he criticized the Republicans for launching the Iraq War without paying for it. So many angles right there...Link (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/palin-so-much-for-civility-with-obamas-debunking-of-death-panels.php)

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) of "You Lie!" fame wasn't the only GOPer to show President Obama something less than complete respect during last night's speech on health care before a joint session of Congress.

The Swamp reports that a few minutes before Obama's speech ended last night, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) stood up and walked out.

The Swamp explains that Shimkus' spokesman rationalized the walkout this way: "Congressman Shimkus was frustrated that the president was not offering any new ground and left with just minutes remaining in the speech."Link (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/gop-rep-walks-out-of-obamas-speech-to-congress.php)

Shimkus was "just" disrespectful, but Armey and Palin come off like nuts in the other two stories. Armey objects to being called on his lies? "Poor old Joe Wilson"? Palin is lecturing Obama on civility?

Don't underestimate the power of this kind of crap to turn voters off. If you remember when Republicans made a mockery of the Terri Schiavo case, that single incident as much as anything else cost them a lot of seats in Congress in 2006.

Rather than returning this sort of idiocy in kind, the left just needs to keep pointing out all this hypocrisy and craziness. The right keeps handing them all this material; it'd be a shame not to use it.

[After G]

Rather than returning this sort of idiocy in kind, the left just needs to keep pointing out all this hypocrisy and craziness. The right keeps handing them all this material; it'd be a shame not to use it.I like Bill Clinton's advice in this interview (http://www.esquire.com/features/bill-clinton-interview-1009), which is similar to what you are saying.

Let the Republicans keep doing what they're doing while the rest of America gets things done.

[NT1440]

I kind of wish he had talked about that more. I thought he was setting a good standard of physical health that could have been a good example for kids. His resting heart rate is 44.4 as well, which is mad respectable. A much better role model than Clinton.

My god, 44?! Isn't 60ish normal?? :eek:

You'd think he'd be a bit more stressed out as president....

[bobber205]

My god, 44?! Isn't 60ish normal?? :eek:

You'd think he'd be a bit more stressed out as president....

I don't know if he was too stressed too often, he took 2 years off. ;)

[freeny]

I like Bill Clinton's advice in this interview (http://www.esquire.com/features/bill-clinton-interview-1009), which is similar to what you are saying.

Let the Republicans keep doing what they're doing while the rest of America gets things done.

True, most of the country has moved on from this crap, the conservatives are too stubborn to realize it.

[fivepoint]

Disclaimer: if President Bush had been hit by the shoes it would not have been awesome; if anything the coolest part was Bush's excellent reflexes in dodging the shoes so deftly.

I was equally impressed with Obama's swatting of the fly. We sure have some ninja-like presidents lately.


For those of you who are "outraged" with Mr. Wilson... Ahhh... what short memories we have!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM

Hypocrites!

[leekohler]

I was equally impressed with Obama's swatting of the fly. We sure have some ninja-like presidents lately.


For those of you who are "outraged" with Mr. Wilson... Ahhh... what short memories we have!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM

Hypocrites!

:rolleyes:
You're going to compare this to what happened the other night? OK- whatever. Booing is far different than screaming out "you lie".

[fivepoint]

:rolleyes:
You're going to compare this to what happened the other night? OK- whatever. Booing is far different than screaming out "you lie".

And throwing a shoe is worse than calling someone a liar. I suppose the difference was that there were tons of them booing... and apparently booing the REALITY that social security was in financial trouble. Bottom line, it's funny to watch you people who are so politically biased chastise one group of people for something when you've ignored similar actions from your own side. It's such a transparent skew! I personally find it to be amusing and sad all at the same time.

The state of our two party system is truly laughable at this stage. It's like cursing and laughing at yourself in a mirror.

[leekohler]

And throwing a shoe is worse than calling someone a liar. I suppose the difference was that there were tons of them booing... and apparently booing the REALITY that social security was in financial trouble. Bottom line, it's funny to watch you people who are so politically biased chastise one group of people for something when you've ignored similar actions from your own side. It's such a transparent skew! I personally find it to be amusing and sad all at the same time.

The state of our two party system is truly laughable at this stage. It's like cursing and laughing at yourself in a mirror.

Hahaha- oh fivepoint, a Democrat threw a shoe at Bush? I don't remember that. And BTW- if a foreign leader invaded the US without provocation and killed hundreds of thousands of our countrymen, what would you do if you got the chance? I bet you'd throw more than a shoe.

[Iscariot]

And throwing a shoe is worse than calling someone a liar.

Muntadhar al-Zaidi was sentenced to three years. I'm pretty sure Wilson doesn't have to worry about that.
Bottom line, it's funny to watch you people who are so politically biased chastise one group of people for something when you've ignored similar actions from your own side. It's such a transparent skew! I personally find it to be amusing and sad all at the same time.

Yes, and you've clearly demonstrated yourself to be so far above such actions.

[fivepoint]

Hahaha- oh fivepoint, a Democrat threw a shoe at Bush? I don't remember that. And BTW- if a foreign leader invaded the US without provocation and killed hundreds of thousands of our countrymen, what would you do if you got the chance? I bet you'd throw more than a shoe.

No one said a Democrat threw a shoe at Bush. Try to follow along Lee... Many Democrats thought it was hilarious when the shoe was thrown! I tend to agree. It didn't cause any damage, I wouldn't have done it... but, funny. TODAY though, someone of the opposing political party yells 'liar' and the Democrats are FURIOUS! The blogosphere has erupted, the congressmen are threatening censure... again, I wouldn't have done it, but funny. My question is... why all of a sudden to Democrats not find this funny?

If you can't see the hypocricy, you're likely guilty of involvement. :)

[imac/cheese]

No one said a Democrat threw a shoe at Bush. Try to follow along Lee... Many Democrats thought it was hilarious when the shoe was thrown! I tend to agree. It didn't cause any damage, I wouldn't have done it... but, funny. TODAY though, someone of the opposing political party yells 'liar' and the Democrats are FURIOUS! The blogosphere has erupted, the congressmen are threatening censure... again, I wouldn't have done it, but funny. My question is... why all of a sudden to Democrats not find this funny?

If you can't see the hypocricy, you're likely guilty of involvement. :)

Personally, I see Wilson's outburst as more embarrasing than funny.

[leekohler]

No one said a Democrat threw a shoe at Bush. Try to follow along Lee... Many Democrats thought it was hilarious when the shoe was thrown! I tend to agree. It didn't cause any damage, I wouldn't have done it... but, funny. TODAY though, someone of the opposing political party yells 'liar' and the Democrats are FURIOUS! The blogosphere has erupted, the congressmen are threatening censure... again, I wouldn't have done it, but funny. My question is... why all of a sudden to Democrats not find this funny?

If you can't see the hypocricy, you're likely guilty of involvement. :)

Try to follow along, fivepoint...I didn't think it was funny at all that someone felt like they had to throw a shoe at Bush. I thought it was sad- sad that someone hated our leadership so much, and rightly so, that they felt they needed to do that.

You still haven't answered my question.

Oh- and censure isn't going to happen as long as the guy issues an apology in the House. That's hardly an unreasonable request.

His political opponent is raking in the dough too- $750,000 since Wilson said that.

[Iscariot]

No one said a Democrat threw a shoe at Bush. Try to follow along Lee... Many Democrats thought it was hilarious when the shoe was thrown! I tend to agree. It didn't cause any damage, I wouldn't have done it... but, funny. TODAY though, someone of the opposing political party yells 'liar' and the Democrats are FURIOUS! The blogosphere has erupted, the congressmen are threatening censure... again, I wouldn't have done it, but funny. My question is... why all of a sudden to Democrats not find this funny?

Fivepoint, there's simply no comparison between the two, and I think you're well aware of that. A Democrat did not throw the shoe at President Bush, a foreign journalist did. There is a huge difference between a foreign journalist engaging in an action and an American politician engaging in an action. I don't think it's extraordinary to expect your own politicians not to hurl invectives.

Now I'm sure that the liberal blogosphere is more interested in this than they would be if somebody had called President Bush a liar. But I have no doubt whatsoever that if this had happened to President Bush, the conservative blogosphere would also have been up in arms. Is the fact that they are not now outraged not just as much evidence of the same "hypocrisy"?

[freeny]

Try to follow along, fivepoint...I didn't think it was funny at all that someone felt like they had to throw a shoe at Bush. I thought it was sad- sad that someone hated our leadership so much, and rightly so, that they felt they needed to do that.

My feelings as well.
It was a nasty feeling that our leadership was so despised in the world. I remember applauding his quick evasive maneuver.

[leekohler]

My feelings as well.
It was a nasty feeling that our leadership was so despised in the world. I remember applauding his quick evasive maneuver.

And indicative of just how poorly we were doing with foreign relations. It was a low point in American politics for sure.

[fivepoint]

Now I'm sure that the liberal blogosphere is more interested in this than they would be if somebody had called President Bush a liar. But I have no doubt whatsoever that if this had happened to President Bush, the conservative blogosphere would also have been up in arms. Is the fact that they are not now outraged not just as much evidence of the same "hypocrisy"?

Exactly. Both parties are guilty of the same hypocrisy. Truly laughable though that you can shine a mirror on the hypocrisy and they still deny it, straight-up.

[.Andy]

Exactly. Both parties are guilty of the same hypocrisy. Truly laughable though that you can shine a mirror on the hypocrisy and they still deny it, straight-up.
Ron Paul would have been the first american president free of hypocrisy. If only people could have seen it.

[leekohler]

Ron Paul would have been the first american president free of hypocrisy. If only people could have seen it.

Don't even get me started. It's Friday.

[.Andy]

Don't even get me started. It's Friday.
I fully support a ban on ron paul talk around weekends and public holidays :p!

[fivepoint]

I fully support a ban on ron paul talk around weekends and public holidays :p!

With just about any politician, it's be easy to find numerous hypocrisies in in their voting records. I'd love to see how many you can come up with for Ron Paul. Good luck.

[.Andy]

A problem with modern libertarians is that their views are often indistinguishable from satire.

[fivepoint]

A problem with modern libertarians is that their views are often indistinguishable from satire.

Off topic, but please... enlighten me. Feel free to post relevant sources to back up your undoubtedly biased and potentially irrelevant arguments.

[benthewraith]

Really? Google is your friend, ya know...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/cnn-poll-two-thirds-of-speech-watchers-favor-obamas-proposals/

18% of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans, 45% identified themselves as Democrats, and 37% identified themselves as Independents.

I would hope you'd be smart enough to not use a skewed poll to base any evidence on. Link to CNN's results, as stated above. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/09/top13.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

Huffington Post is a far left blog who's credibility is about the same as Newsmax. Please do better.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693[/QUOTE]

[.Andy]

Off topic, but please... enlighten me. Feel free to post relevant sources to back up your undoubtedly biased and potentially irrelevant arguments.
Here's a quoted source (possibly biased though). A libertarian unironically claiming that their man is the best politician and the least hypocritical. Or is is satire? You be the judge....

With just about any politician, it's be easy to find numerous hypocrisies in in their voting records. I'd love to see how many you can come up with for Ron Paul. Good luck.

[leekohler]

Huffington Post is a far left blog who's credibility is about the same as Newsmax. Please do better.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693[/QUOTE]

That's why I linked you to surveyUSA as well. Please read all links. Thanks.

[Rt&Dzine]

The "You lie!" outburst sounds like a spoiled brat who isn't getting what he wants. The behavior seems about par for Wilson. Considering the source, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it.

[freeny]

The "You lie!" outburst sounds like a spoiled brat who isn't getting what he wants. The behavior seems about par for Wilson. Considering the source, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it.

He has most likely fallen for the same lies being spread that all the other Republicans have grasped onto...

[Thomas Veil]

I like Bill Clinton's advice in this interview (http://www.esquire.com/features/bill-clinton-interview-1009), which is similar to what you are saying. No...better. Much, much better.

I always thought Clinton was a smart guy, but I'm always impressed in interviews with how wise he is (not necessarily the same thing). It's worth quoting a few bits here from the link you posted:

"The thing that I think is wrong and dumb about this is that they're in la-la land about this 'Where was Obama born?' and all that kind of stuff, and I think it sounds like an old record with a bad scratch in it.

"Look, as a Democrat, let them have at it. But for America's sake, what they should be doing is saying, 'Why aren't they buying what we're selling?' First of all, nothing lasts forever, no theory of the case lasts forever, time moves on. So their message won't fly because the circumstances of America are different, the demography of America is different, the psychology of America is different... It's so plainly out of whack with what you perceive the reality of the day and the challenges that we face. We've got 9 percent of all eligible homeowners in America having their mortgages rewritten — 9 percent — and you're talking to me about where Obama was born? Give me a break. I mean it's like, what is this?"

"Al Gore was hypervigilant in his following of the intelligence reports and very solid in his understanding of the defense and security policy, and I think he would've done a really good job. I think that he would have been reluctant to fight a war on two fronts; I think he would've tried to finish the business with Al Qaeda and Afghanistan and let the UN inspectors finish what they were doing in Iraq. So yeah, it would've been a very different time."

"...in the end, you can't love your country and hate your government. You can criticize your country — that's every American's God-given right and 100 percent of us have done it. But I really believe that eventually, we were going to become a country that was not necessarily more liberal but was more communitarian, with the belief that we had to go up or down together, and we would come to realize that our fates are bound up together, and to realize that our government was an important part — not the only, but an important part — of creating a common future that was positive. And that is the kind of majority that we have now."

"This electorate has suffered. They've suffered economically, they've suffered an enormous amount of sort of psychic insecurity from 9/11 to the economic breakdown, they've seen all this change going on around them, and they see in Obama a cool and intelligent guy who can multitask in a world where they know you've got to multitask. What they don't know is whether our guys are going to stand and deliver. And sooner or later you've got to stand and deliver. All we have to worry about is getting things done and doing them as well as we can. Don't even worry about the Republicans. Let them figure out what they're going to stand for. 'Cause as long as they're sitting around waiting for us to mess up, they don't have a chance."

[63dot]

Off topic, but please... enlighten me. Feel free to post relevant sources to back up your undoubtedly biased and potentially irrelevant arguments.

I rarely agree with you, but this time I do. Libertarians are very often misunderstood by the press and general public. The liberal media likes to paint the "small government" side of Libertarians as some ultra right wing branch of the GOP.

What many don't realize as while at the same time, the Libertarians stand for personal individual rights, and are socially liberal, while at the same time asking government to stay out of regulating business.

The whole concept of a social liberal, fiscal conservative model of a Blue Dog Democrat, stems from Libertarianism and the press is in love with Democrats who are fiscally responsible yet hold permissive social views.

But while the Democrats should back gay marriage and a decriminalization of marijuana, it's the Libertarians who push this agenda of personal freedom. There has been a lot of talk around the Libertarian Party about trying to get a Paul-Kunicich ticket for '12. Anyway, those two are asking for an audit of the Federal Reserve which I think is a good idea. Most of the LP members in my neck of the woods are also very involved in the peace movement and medical marijuana movement. I live in Northern California so that explains that version of the LP and I am sure it's different in other areas.

Potentially, the LP has a much larger umbrella than either of the two main parties. What is hard, at least at the last California LP meeting, is that the individual rights crowd clashed with the small government crowd and until that's solved in our nation's largest state, the LP has no chance at forward momentum.

Gene Burns, a major ABC news reporter and talk show host, is California's top Libertarian voice, and has repeatedly turned down all offers to be the LP's candidate for President. While I voted third party, green, last time, I do like Gene Burns a lot and he has a very strong crowd of former Democrats and former Republicans.

[leekohler]

I rarely agree with you, but this time I do. Libertarians are very often misunderstood by the press and general public. The liberal media likes to paint the "small government" side of Libertarians as some ultra right wing branch of the GOP.

What many don't realize as while at the same time, the Libertarians stand for personal individual rights, and are socially liberal, while at the same time asking government to stay out of regulating business.

The whole concept of a social liberal, fiscal conservative model of a Blue Dog Democrat, stems from Libertarianism and the press is in love with Democrats who are fiscally responsible yet hold permissive social views.

But while the Democrats should back gay marriage and a decriminalization of marijuana, it's the Libertarians who push this agenda of personal freedom. There has been a lot of talk around the Libertarian Party about trying to get a Paul-Kunicich ticket for '12. Anyway, those two are asking for an audit of the Federal Reserve which I think is a good idea. Most of the LP members in my neck of the woods are also very involved in the peace movement and medical marijuana movement. I live in Northern California so that explains that version of the LP and I am sure it's different in other areas.

Potentially, the LP has a much larger umbrella than either of the two main parties. What is hard, at least at the last California LP meeting, is that the individual rights crowd clashed with the small government crowd and until that's solved in our nation's largest state, the LP has no chance at forward momentum.

Gene Burns, a major ABC news reporter and talk show host, is California's top Libertarian voice, and has repeatedly turned down all offers to be the LP's candidate for President. While I voted third party, green, last time, I do like Gene Burns a lot and he has a very strong crowd of former Democrats and former Republicans.

No- Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected because he's nuts. He doesn't care about individual freedom. Anyone can vote rights away from others as long as a state does it, and not the fed. He said as much with this in Lawrence vs Texas:

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."[205]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

In other words, if your state declares you illegal as a gay person, he thinks that's just dandy- and you can serve hard time for having gay sex. He's full of s***, and I want nothing to do with him, or his political party. He also states here that there is no right to privacy. I'm sorry, the guy is nuts. He also doesn't believe in separation of church and state:

The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Sorry- no way on hell would I ever vote for, or belong to the same party as a nutjob like this guy. You guys can blow smoke about what Libertarians really are all you want, but this wacko is their de facto leader at the moment, and as it stands, I wouldn't go near them.

[63dot]

No- Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected because he's nuts. He doesn't care about individual freedom. Anyone can vote rights away from others as long as a state does it, and not the fed. He said as much with this in Lawrence vs Texas:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

In other words, if your state declares you illegal as a gay person, he thinks that's just dandy- and you can serve hard time for having gay sex. He's full of s***, and I want nothing to do with him, or his political party. He also states here that there is no right to privacy. I'm sorry, the guy is nuts. He also doesn't believe in separation of church and state:



http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Sorry- no way on hell would I ever vote for, or belong to the same party as a nutjob like this guy. You guys can blow smoke about what Libertarians really are all you want, but this wacko is their de facto leader at the moment, and as it stands, I wouldn't go near them.

By far the most popular Libertarian politician in their history was Gene Burns, who is openly gay. The LP, which is not my party BTW, has a huge umbrella of beliefs. Possibly the only person to poll as a more popular LP candidate may have been Ross Perot had he gone LP in '92 or former Cal governor Brown in '96 or 2000 had he gone with the LP.

[leekohler]

By far the most popular Libertarian politician in their history was Gene Burns, who is openly gay. The LP, which is not my party BTW, has a huge umbrella of beliefs. Possibly the only person to poll as a more popular LP candidate may have been Ross Perot had he gone LP in '92 or former Cal governor Brown in '96 or 2000 had he gone with the LP.

I stand by what I said- Paul is NOT someone I would ever go near politically. And given that so many Libertarians like the guy, I feel extremely uncomfortable with that party.

[NT1440]

By far the most popular Libertarian politician in their history was Gene Burns, who is openly gay. The LP, which is not my party BTW, has a huge umbrella of beliefs. Possibly the only person to poll as a more popular LP candidate may have been Ross Perot had he gone LP in '92 or former Cal governor Brown in '96 or 2000 had he gone with the LP.

What is that supposed to even mean? Lee's point still stands, if some of the hick states were to vote to make being gay illegal, Ron Paul's stance would to be support it, he is 100% states rights after all.

[Nugget]

Ron Paul also has some disturbing views on religion. His rants against "secularists" driving christianity out of public policy are scary. He even bought into that Faux "war on christmas" inanity. There was a time in my life when his anti-tax views resonated with me, but I've matured since then.

I do appreciate his seemingly lone voice on fiscal restraint and anti-imperialism. I'm glad he's a fringe but legitimate member of Congress. I'd never vote for the whole package, though, if he was from my district.

[FrankieTDouglas]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125287969171006999.html

At this point, what is happening defines the very essence of "playing politics." He did something crass, apologized, but others want the same apology in different settings. He says no, he already apologized to the president. All of this reminds me too much of corporate environments and meetings - stuff that does no good in the end and only serves to ensure an endless amount of back and forth.

Even though I'm a "non-party liberal," I commend Joe Wilson for ending his apology with the president. I didn't even care if he apologized. Democrats have to stop focusing on this. They're turning him into a verbal martyr.

[zap2]

Ron Paul also has some disturbing views on religion. His rants against "secularists" driving christianity out of public policy are scary. He even bought into that Faux "war on christmas" inanity. There was a time in my life when his anti-tax views resonated with me, but I've matured since then.

I do appreciate his seemingly lone voice on fiscal restraint and anti-imperialism. I'm glad he's a fringe but legitimate member of Congress. I'd never vote for the whole package, though, if he was from my district.

Agreed...he's a good voice to have, but not to be running the show. I'd like a Kucinich/Paul ticket for 2012, that way Kucinich could make the finally call(so social issues, he'd be sure to protect them) but then he could let Paul go nuts on the money ones(that make sense, none of this gold standard crap)

[Iscariot]

Truly laughable though that you can shine a mirror on the hypocrisy and they still deny it, straight-up.

Coming from someone quoting D'Souza. More stones from glass houses.

[macfan881]

heres what i find is Moronic and Twisted about this if this was done about Bush on the war in Iraq any one who would have done it ben Labbled unpatriotic and be hammerd down By Fauxed News and im sure would have been taken away that night.

[Zombie Acorn]

No- Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected because he's nuts. He doesn't care about individual freedom. Anyone can vote rights away from others as long as a state does it, and not the fed. He said as much with this in Lawrence vs Texas:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

In other words, if your state declares you illegal as a gay person, he thinks that's just dandy- and you can serve hard time for having gay sex. He's full of s***, and I want nothing to do with him, or his political party. He also states here that there is no right to privacy. I'm sorry, the guy is nuts. He also doesn't believe in separation of church and state:



http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Sorry- no way on hell would I ever vote for, or belong to the same party as a nutjob like this guy. You guys can blow smoke about what Libertarians really are all you want, but this wacko is their de facto leader at the moment, and as it stands, I wouldn't go near them.

Hes technically correct though. It also doesn't mean he believes in anti-sodomy laws, just that the states have the right to make their own laws if they do not clash with the constitution.

[leekohler]

Hes technically correct though. It also doesn't mean he believes in anti-sodomy laws, just that the states have the right to make their own laws if they do not clash with the constitution.

He's not technically correct. There is a right to privacy in this country. It's been illustrated in this forum before by several posters. Can somebody help me find that again?

And I'll say it again, he's splitting hairs and trying to have it both ways. On one hand he says the laws are silly, but sees no reason to stop them either. That's essentially saying some people are legal, and others not. That strikes me as extremely anti-American, don't you think? It's a cop out. Do you really think it's OK for the police to go into your house and arrest you for having gay sex, and then have the courts give a conviction? Well, neither did the Supreme Court. And they ruled it was a violation of the constitution- a conservative court, no less.

And what about Paul's other beliefs against the right to privacy and separation of church and state?

[fivepoint]

He's not technically correct. There is a right to privacy in this country. It's been illustrated in this forum before by several posters. Can somebody help me find that again?

And I'll say it again, he's splitting hairs and trying to have it both ways. On one hand he says the laws are silly, but sees no reason to stop them either. That's essentially saying some people are legal, and others not. That strikes me as extremely anti-American, don't you think? It's a cop out. Do you really think it's OK for the police to go into your house and arrest you for having gay sex, and then have the courts give a felony conviction? Well, neither did the Supreme Court. And they ruled it was a violation of the constitution- a conservative court, no less.

And what about Paul's other beliefs against the right to privacy and separation of church and state?


Simply stating the the constitution says is not a cop out. He said that he himself didn't like the laws, but that he saw no reason they were currently unconstitutional. Just because you rightfully support gay sex with no oversight of the government doesn't mean he's wrong, in fact it just means he is more a strict constitutionalist than you are which is clearly true based on your liberal stances on many issues.

Dr. Paul has a long and proud history of supporting policies that take the government further out of our life in regards to monetary AND social issues. He doesn't want the government to be analyzing your sex life but he first and foremost must support the document which holds this nation together. If the state's rights to do these things are being taken away illegally by the U.S. government, that is wrong. It should be done correctly via a amendment to the constitution.

Dr. Paul is exactly right with the separation of church and state as well. The constitution states that 'congress shall make no law'. No law has been made, but individuals should have the right to pray and worship anywhere they want to. Even in school. Even in a courthouse.

How sad that you see a need to demonize this man for his statements when he's probably fought harder than anyone you know to make sure your freedoms and liberties are protected from those who would take it under the cover of darkness.

[yg17]

Hes technically correct though. It also doesn't mean he believes in anti-sodomy laws, just that the states have the right to make their own laws if they do not clash with the constitution.

That's bullcrap. The Constitution shouldn't give states the power to declare that someone's very existence on this earth is illegal.

If we left everything up to the states, slavery would still be legal in the south. Some decisions should not be left up to the state, especially if they interfere with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The federal government needs to set some laws so you can enjoy freedom regardless of which of the states you live in.

[leekohler]

Simply stating the the constitution says is not a cop out. He said that he himself didn't like the laws, but that he saw no reason they were currently unconstitutional. Just because you rightfully support gay sex with no oversight of the government doesn't mean he's wrong, in fact it just means he is more a strict constitutionalist than you are which is clearly true based on your liberal stances on many issues.

Dr. Paul has a long and proud history of supporting policies that take the government further out of our life in regards to monetary AND social issues. He doesn't want the government to be analyzing your sex life but he first and foremost must support the document which holds this nation together. If the state's rights to do these things are being taken away illegally by the U.S. government, that is wrong. It should be done correctly via a amendment to the constitution.

Dr. Paul is exactly right with the separation of church and state as well. The constitution states that 'congress shall make no law'. No law has been made, but individuals should have the right to pray and worship anywhere they want to. Even in school. Even in a courthouse.

How sad that you see a need to demonize this man for his statements when he's probably fought harder than anyone you know to make sure your freedoms and liberties are protected from those who would take it under the cover of darkness.

Nope -he's wrong. There is a right to privacy in the Constitution and it has been supported consistently by the Court. Even a conservative court couldn't let the Texas law stand. He's wrong about separation of church and state as well. The government may not establish or favor any religion. That has also been upheld consistently. And who ever said people can't pray in public anywhere? Of course they can. It just can't be government sanctioned.

That's bullcrap. The Constitution shouldn't give states the power to declare that someone's very existence on this earth is illegal.



And it doesn't.

[fivepoint]

That's bullcrap. The Constitution shouldn't give states the power to declare that someone's very existence on this earth is illegal.

If we left everything up to the states, slavery would still be legal in the south. Some decisions should not be left up to the state, especially if they interfere with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The federal government needs to set some laws so you can enjoy freedom regardless of which of the states you live in.

Um... no, it wouldn't. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html)

[yg17]

And it doesn't.

I know it doesn't. Anyone who's read the Constitution knows it doesn't. But I sometimes wonder if Wacky Ronnie and the others who see nothing wrong with anti-sodomy laws have ever read it.

[leekohler]

Um... no, it wouldn't. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html)

Huh? :confused:

[diamond.g]

Um... no, it wouldn't. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html)

If the south didn't lose one could be reasonably sure that slavery would still exist, and that the US would have been 2 or more countries.

[yg17]

Um... no, it wouldn't. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html)

Uh, that's my point. If the federal government didn't step in to ban it, and do what some may consider a breach of states rights, it might still be legal. The 13th amendment is a fine example of why not everything should be up to states to decide.

[leekohler]

How sad that you see a need to demonize this man for his statements when he's probably fought harder than anyone you know to make sure your freedoms and liberties are protected from those who would take it under the cover of darkness.

I take issue with this statement as well. When is the last time you stuck your neck out for anything? Don't EVER lecture me about things like that until you've stood up in front of a lecture hall full of people who hate you and answered all manner of horrible questions and insults. Don't lecture me about standing up for freedom until you've received death threats and had the police tell you they won't do anything.

You said this to the wrong person.

[Zombie Acorn]

That's bullcrap. The Constitution shouldn't give states the power to declare that someone's very existence on this earth is illegal.

If we left everything up to the states, slavery would still be legal in the south. Some decisions should not be left up to the state, especially if they interfere with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The federal government needs to set some laws so you can enjoy freedom regardless of which of the states you live in.

Its not illegal to be gay, some states have laws on the books where you can beat your wife as long as you bring her to the town hall steps. I have never heard of anyone being convicted in modern times of sodomy, I am pretty sure I would have seen a thread posted here and there would have been outrage around the country.

SOME decisions shouldn't be left up to the states, slavery should have never been considered constitutional. The constitution didn't have to change in that matter though, it was our classification of African Americans.

[Macaddicttt]

The Constitution shouldn't give states the power to declare that someone's very existence on this earth is illegal.

Who ever has said that it does?

EDIT: To be clear, I find sodomy laws unconstitutional and I think Ron Paul is an idiot. I just had to call out this ridiculous statement.

[diamond.g]

SOME decisions shouldn't be left up to the states, slavery should have never been considered constitutional. The constitution didn't have to change in that matter though, it was our classification of African Americans.

What? The constitution made it illegal to have some one as a slave. Not just African Americans.

[Zombie Acorn]

What? The constitution made it illegal to have some one as a slave. Not just African Americans.

The line that divided those who were slaves and those who weren't should have never been there to start with. We shouldn't have had to explicitly say that you can't have slaves, it should have been a given that all men were equal.

[leekohler]

Its not illegal to be gay, some states have laws on the books where you can beat your wife as long as you bring her to the town hall steps. I have never heard of anyone being convicted in modern times of sodomy, I am pretty sure I would have seen a thread posted here and there would have been outrage around the country.


There was, and there was no outrage across the country. That's the sad part. The outrage came from the right after the law got struck down. What do you think we've been talking about? BTW- this was in 1998:

Lawrence and Garner were arrested, held overnight in jail, and charged with violating Texas's anti-sodomy statute, the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law. The law, Chapter 21, Sec. 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, designated it as a Class C misdemeanor when someone "engages in deviant sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex," prohibiting anal and oral sex between members of the same sex.[8] They later posted $200 bail.
On November 20, Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest to the charges. They were convicted by Justice of the Peace Mike Parrott

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

[Zombie Acorn]

There was, and there was no outrage across the country. That's the sad part. The outrage came from the right after the law got struck down. What do you think we've been talking about? BTW- this was in 1998:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

I would have been a freshmen in high school in 98, never heard about this. At least the law was struck down though, extremely ridiculous.

At the same time I do not believe Ron Paul is anti-gay or thinks that these laws are right. He would probably lose an election with all of the religious nutballs in TX if he got in the middle of the debate though. I like Ron Paul for his fiscal ideas and thats mainly what he focuses on, sometimes you have to choose your battles.

[leekohler]

I would have been a freshmen in high school in 98, never heard about this. At least the law was struck down though, extremely ridiculous.

At the same time I do not believe Ron Paul is anti-gay or thinks that these laws are right. He would probably lose an election with all of the religious nutballs in TX if he got in the middle of the debate though. I like Ron Paul for his fiscal ideas and thats mainly what he focuses on, sometimes you have to choose your battles.

I quoted Ron Paul earlier. I never said he was anti-gay, just that he thought Texas should be able to pass laws like this. He said that, I'm not making it up. And that is frightening to me.

[thegoldenmackid]

GOP will gain seats in the next election.

For the record, them losing more seats would seem rather hard given their past couple of elections.

[63dot]

Dr. Paul is exactly right with the separation of church and state as well. The constitution states that 'congress shall make no law'. No law has been made, but individuals should have the right to pray and worship anywhere they want to. Even in school. Even in a courthouse.




School prayer, I have no issue against that. And I am a Christian also.

But a courthouse. Re-read the Constitution. Realize that our country was founded on a premise of escaping corrupt religion messing with politics and vice versa.

Anyway try and Google two things and come to your own conclusion. First, The Federalist Papers, and second, the history of the Anglican Church in the later 1700s. This will give you a little perspective to what America was about politically at the time.

Not only did we want to prevent an incestuous relationship that overstepped reasonable bounds of a reasonalbe prudent person, but also have a system with checks and balances.

By having an executive branch, legislative branch free from judging others, and a judicial branch free to interpret laws but not make them, no one branch could take over. This was in sheer contrast to a King and Church running the business of a country where that King (or Queen) was also "head" of the church.

We must guard against a breach of our separated powers lest we lose the entire definition of America. Fivepoint, if you want an America to revert to pre-Constitutinal times, that's fine as that is your freedom of speech.

Just realize without a Constitution to protect all of us, you may not have a right to say what you believe. Our founding fathers were religious in some respect, but also had a foot in the enlightenment and democracy.

They set up a system where we could have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion being the behemoth in legislation.