PDA

View Full Version : Elections A Question For Democrats/Liberals/Barack Hussein Followers


Donger
11-04-2008, 08:55 AM
I've noticed that many of you, in the event of a Barack Hussein victory, seem to think that Republicans/Conservatives are just going to roll over and merely accept whatever radicalism the administration and Congress try to implement.

Why is that?

Have you gotten so familiar with Bush (and others) that you think the opposition is going to sit in the corner and shudder?

I welcome your input. Thanks.

Saggysack
11-04-2008, 08:58 AM
I don't think I have ever said or implied that nonsense. Haven't seen anyone else do the same. Must be the thin air. Now that's implying something.

WhooHoo.

I MF'in Barack'ed the vote!

BigCatDaddy
11-04-2008, 09:02 AM
I can't imagine they really believe that. They should know every statement and promise Obama has made while campaigning will be revisited time and time again if it's not met.

jAZ
11-04-2008, 09:04 AM
I've noticed that many of you, in the event of a Barack Hussein victory, seem to think that Republicans/Conservatives are just going to roll over and merely accept whatever radicalism the administration and Congress try to implement.

Why is that?

Have you gotten so familiar with Bush (and others) that you think the opposition is going to sit in the corner and shudder?

I welcome your input. Thanks.
I've asked whether Repubilcans will extend a "honeymoon" period in the way that Dems did in the first few months of Bush's Administration. There was a need to put the ugliness of the 2000 election behind us at that time, and while we didn't let Bush have his way on every issue, there was a general tone of commitment to patient bi-partisanship. It wasn't until the summer that things started getting back to political normalcy. Then 9/11 and things really became "unified" for the most part... until the "Axis of Evil" remarks.

I'd expect the same this year.

I don't know that I will get it. But I expect it.

talastan
11-04-2008, 09:05 AM
I can't imagine they really believe that. They should know every statement and promise Obama has made while campaigning will be revisited time and time again if it's not met.

Nope they'll just use it as a justification for a second term should he get elected in the first place! :shake:

NewChief
11-04-2008, 09:06 AM
I don't think anyone believes that. I think a few are curious on whether the conservatives are going to actually wait and see what sort of policies Obama attempts to enact prior to launching their attacks, or if they're just going to start slamming him based on what they're afraid he might do.

I know the answer, and I fully expect the conservative onslaught of the election to continue unabated for the next four years, regardless of what Obama does or does not do.

BigCatDaddy
11-04-2008, 09:06 AM
I've asked whether Repubilcans will extend a "honeymoon" period in the way that Dems did in the first few months of Bush's Administration. There was a need to put the ugliness of the 2000 election behind us at that time, and while we didn't let Bush have his way on every issue, there was a general tone of commitment to patient bi-partisanship. It wasn't until the summer that things started getting back to political normalcy. Then 9/11 and things really became "unified" for the most part... until the "Axis of Evil" remarks.

I'd expect the same this year.

I don't know that I will get it. But I expect it.

DENIED!

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:06 AM
I've asked whether Repubilcans will extend a "honeymoon" period in the way that Dems did in the first few months of Bush's Administration. There was a need to put the ugliness of the 2000 election behind us at that time, and while we didn't let Bush have his way on every issue, there was a general tone of commitment to patient bi-partisanship. It wasn't until the summer that things started getting back to political normalcy. Then 9/11 and things really became "unified" for the most part... until the "Axis of Evil" remarks.

I'd expect the same this year.

I don't know that I will get it. But I expect it.

Thanks. I think one of the major differences is that Barack Hussein has proposed some rather radical ideas, some that he will implement immediately (Iraq). I wouldn't expect no opposition to such radicalism.

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:07 AM
I don't think anyone believes that. I think a few are curious on whether the conservatives are going to actually wait and see what sort of policies Obama attempts to enact prior to launching their attacks, or if they're just going to start slamming him based on what they're afraid he might do.

I know the answer, and I fully expect the conservative onslaught of the election to continue unabated for the next four years, regardless of what Obama does or does not do.

Surely you've witnessed and acknowledged the liberal onslaught the last eight years, yes?

BigCatDaddy
11-04-2008, 09:07 AM
I don't think anyone believes that. I think a few are curious on whether the conservatives are going to actually wait and see what sort of policies Obama attempts to enact prior to launching their attacks, or if they're just going to start slamming him based on what they're afraid he might do.

I know the answer, and I fully expect the conservative onslaught of the election to continue unabated for the next four years, regardless of what Obama does or does not do.

Damn right. There is 8 years of Bush bashing to pay back.

triple
11-04-2008, 09:08 AM
Thanks. I think one of the major differences is that Barack Hussein has proposed some rather radical ideas, some that he will implement immediately (Iraq). I wouldn't expect no opposition to such radicalism.

what is he going to do immediately in iraq?

triple
11-04-2008, 09:08 AM
Damn right. There is 6 years of Bush bashing to pay back.

except this time around it will be "these people are just racists, we dont have to listen to them"

NewChief
11-04-2008, 09:10 AM
Surely you've witnessed and acknowledged the liberal onslaught the last eight years, yes?

Right. Tit for tat. An eye for an eye. Etc.

BigCatDaddy
11-04-2008, 09:10 AM
except this time around it will be "these people are just racists, we dont have to listen to them"

They will try that, I don't see it silencing the critics though.

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:11 AM
what is he going to do immediately in iraq?

He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office ďand I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively.Ē

Friendo
11-04-2008, 09:13 AM
I think what has passed for "Conservatism" the past 20 years is actually quite Radical.

BigCatDaddy
11-04-2008, 09:13 AM
He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office ďand I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively.Ē

Must suck to be exposed on your first day in office.

triple
11-04-2008, 09:14 AM
He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office ďand I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively.Ē

Doesn't he know that the Joint Chiefs are advisers of his, and not part of the military chain of command?

and that if he wanted to issue that order he gives it to Petraeus?

I hope that White House orientation is going to be beefed up between now and January

HolyHandgernade
11-04-2008, 09:16 AM
He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office ďand I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively.Ē

Don't really know why that is radical or wrong.

-HH

Demonpenz
11-04-2008, 09:19 AM
He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office ďand I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively.Ē

that would save some cash

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:19 AM
Don't really know why that is radical or wrong.

-HH

Well, one would think if that objective were readily-doable with the wave a magic wand, it would have been done by now.

HolyHandgernade
11-04-2008, 09:22 AM
Well, one would think if that objective were readily-doable with the wave a magic wand, it would have been done by now.

Sometimes, a different perspective sees possibilities overlooked from the previous perspective. This is not uncommon. But again, what is it about the words "responsibly, deliberately, and decisively" that are radical? Seems like a very reasoned and wise approach to me.

-HH

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 09:23 AM
I've noticed that many of you, in the event of a Barack Hussein victory, seem to think that Republicans/Conservatives are just going to roll over and merely accept whatever radicalism the administration and Congress try to implement.

Why is that?

Have you gotten so familiar with Bush (and others) that you think the opposition is going to sit in the corner and shudder?

I welcome your input. Thanks.

I doubt they will do that. In fact, I firmly believe that you gentlemen are vastly overrating the "radicalism" that the Democrats will implement.

I find the healthcare system to be completely dysfunctional, so "radical" reform is certainly required in that area.

Meanwhile, the Republicans will of course quickly learn that their will on Iraq is now irrelevant to the exact same extent that the Bush Administration treated the Democrat's opinion on the matter. Not that an immediate pullout is necessarily in the cards, but while Republicans may bluster, it won't matter much in terms of the final policy.

Finally, in partial answer to your question -- today is likely to result in an overwhelming mandate for Democrats and Obama, which to some degree means that Republicans are for now out of power and out of relevancy. 2009 will in all likelihood be a terrible eyar economically, and I'm sure the bloom will be off the Obama rose as quickly as usual with any new President, and I suspect Republicans to recover some ground by the 2010 elections.

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:24 AM
Sometimes, a different perspective sees possibilities overlooked from the previous perspective. This is not uncommon. But again, what is it about the words "responsibly, deliberately, and decisively" that are radical? Seems like a very reasoned and wise approach to me.

-HH

They are just words. If Barack Hussein is elected, I'll be very interested to see what actions transpire.

penchief
11-04-2008, 09:24 AM
Why would any of us think that? Their track record is one of being uncompromising and bullyish. They threatened the "nuclear option" as a means of getting their way. Then they turn around and use cloture as a means of obstructing legislation more than any other body in the history of the United States. They have not only proven that they are not going to roll over, they have proven that they would rather sabotage the system than compromise.

The real question of this thread should be why you would think that any democrat or liberal would expect the republican party to roll over when their mode of operation has always been to slash and burn or blow things up before even considering the pragmatic option.

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 09:26 AM
Doesn't he know that the Joint Chiefs are advisers of his, and not part of the military chain of command?

and that if he wanted to issue that order he gives it to Petraeus?

I hope that White House orientation is going to be beefed up between now and January

Actually, he gives it to SecDef who gives it to Petraeus, if you want to be a hypertechnical dick about things.

HolyHandgernade
11-04-2008, 09:27 AM
They are just words. If Barack Hussein is elected, I'll be very interested to see what actions transpire.

Well, he didn't say, "If elected, I'm pulling everyone out immediately." What are you baasing "radical" on? A disagreement in approach? You know what I consider "radical"? A policy of pre-emptive war. That was radical. I just think you picked a poor subject and quote (you know, assembled "words") to demonstrate "radical".

-HH

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 09:29 AM
Well, one would think if that objective were readily-doable with the wave a magic wand, it would have been done by now.

No one has yet establish that it is doable, whether readily or in the long run.

I am currently reading The War Within, by Woodward. Fascinating book. I'm only halfway through it.

My current question, which I doubt will be answered by Woodward, is whether the surge literally SOLVED problems, or whether it was just a great big lid that was slapped on the bubbling cauldron. I don't know the answer to that.

I don't know if Iraq's problems are solveable. The metrics are better, but I'm not sure whether the surge is solving the problem, or just put everyone back into a position of waiting on the US election to see what happens and/or waiting for the US to leave before resuming sectarian violence, etc.

triple
11-04-2008, 09:29 AM
Actually, he gives it to SecDef who gives it to Petraeus, if you want to be a hypertechnical dick about things.

is it hypertechnical to expect the guy who wants to be commander in chief of the military to know who is part of the military chain of command?

Ultra Peanut
11-04-2008, 09:29 AM
i think he gonna give america to the irans

dirk digler
11-04-2008, 09:30 AM
I've noticed that many of you, in the event of a Barack Hussein victory, seem to think that Republicans/Conservatives are just going to roll over and merely accept whatever radicalism the administration and Congress try to implement.

Why is that?

Have you gotten so familiar with Bush (and others) that you think the opposition is going to sit in the corner and shudder?

I welcome your input. Thanks.

I have never heard anyone say this because we know they aren't just going to roll over.

Of course if the Dems get 60 senate seats it really won't matter what the Republicans do because they will be rendered useless.

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:32 AM
Well, he didn't say, "If elected, I'm pulling everyone out immediately." What are you baasing "radical" on? A disagreement in approach? You know what I consider "radical"? A policy of pre-emptive war. That was radical. I just think you picked a poor subject and quote (you know, assembled "words") to demonstrate "radical".

-HH

It's a radical departure from the present, sure. But it is merely one example. Health coverage is another.

BigRedChief
11-04-2008, 09:35 AM
If you wanted a real answer you wouldn't have used his middle name as a jab at the candidate.

Goapics1
11-04-2008, 09:36 AM
If you wanted a real answer you wouldn't have used his middle name as a jab at the candidate.

The Donger way.

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 09:37 AM
is it hypertechnical to expect the guy who wants to be commander in chief of the military to know who is part of the military chain of command?

You know what -- nobody gives a flying f**k. Honestly. 98% of Americans think the JCS would be the right answer to the question. Whether Obama knows or not, he'll quickly be corrected and it won't make a rat's ass of a difference to anyone, ever.

triple
11-04-2008, 09:37 AM
If you wanted a real answer you wouldn't have used his middle name as a jab at the candidate.

Are you guys going to be livid with the chief justice if he says it at his inauguration?

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 09:39 AM
I have never heard anyone say this because we know they aren't just going to roll over.

Of course if the Dems get 60 senate seats it really won't matter what the Republicans do because they will be rendered useless.

For TWO years, at least. Remember, the pendulum always swings back. No matter how great today is, remember that.

Many dickheaded republicans on here crowed until their throats hurt in 2004. I remember statements that Democrats were irrelevant, they'd lost touch, they couldn't win, the only reason they'd had a President since LBJ was (1) Nixon royally f'ing up and (2) Ross Perot running in 1992. If it wasn't for that, the Republicans would've run the country outright for 30 years, blah, blah, blah.

They were morons then. Let's not be morons now.

Radar Chief
11-04-2008, 09:44 AM
is it hypertechnical to expect the guy who wants to be commander in chief of the military to know who is part of the military chain of command?

Yes, and youíre a dick that now deserves to be investigated for daring to question ďthe OneĒ.

dirk digler
11-04-2008, 09:44 AM
For TWO years, at least. Remember, the pendulum always swings back. No matter how great today is, remember that.

Many dickheaded republicans on here crowed until their throats hurt in 2004. I remember statements that Democrats were irrelevant, they'd lost touch, they couldn't win, the only reason they'd had a President since LBJ was (1) Nixon royally f'ing up and (2) Ross Perot running in 1992. If it wasn't for that, the Republicans would've run the country outright for 30 years, blah, blah, blah.

They were morons then. Let's not be morons now.

I agree and have stated many times that Obama and the Dems have 2 years to get everything passed that needs to be passed. Hopefully energy and healthcare are first.

As for being morons, if Obama wins I am going to make some posters lives miserable for a few days especially the bigots.

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 09:46 AM
I agree and have stated many times that Obama and the Dems have 2 years to get everything passed that needs to be passed. Hopefully energy and healthcare are first.

As for being morons, if Obama wins I am going to make some posters lives miserable for a few days especially the bigots.

I can't say I blame you. I intend to do the same if I have time. I didn't say don't enjoy yourself a little. :LOL:

HemiEd
11-04-2008, 09:46 AM
Doesn't he know that the Joint Chiefs are advisers of his, and not part of the military chain of command?

and that if he wanted to issue that order he gives it to Petraeus?

I hope that White House orientation is going to be beefed up between now and January

ROFL

dirk digler
11-04-2008, 09:47 AM
I can't say I blame you. I intend to do the same if I have time. I didn't say don't enjoy yourself a little. :LOL:

Oh I am going to have fun. Though it maybe hard to find them because I have a feeling alot of the righties are going to disappear and hide for awhile.

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:48 AM
Oh I am going to have fun. Though it maybe hard to find them because I have a feeling alot of the righties are going to disappear and hide for awhile.

Why would we do that? It's going to be a hoot if he is elected.

jAZ
11-04-2008, 09:49 AM
Thanks. I think one of the major differences is that Barack Hussein has proposed some rather radical ideas, some that he will implement immediately (Iraq). I wouldn't expect no opposition to such radicalism.

Like I said, but you seemed to have ignored. It's not about opposition to policy, it's about tone and rhetoric. Are Republicans going to allow the country to unify by laying off the "communist", "baby killer", "muslim", "terrorist" garbage and allow for a period of national healing? Or are they going to try to drive the wedges further and deeper and scar the country futher?

Dems put country first in the first few months of Bush's Presidency, and took a wait and see approach initially. I expect the same from Republicans, though I doubt we will see it.

HemiEd
11-04-2008, 09:52 AM
If you wanted a real answer you wouldn't have used his middle name as a jab at the candidate.

Is that not his name? Are you ashamed of his name? Why does he have that name? He is yours, you should embrace it, not be ashamed of it.

Sully
11-04-2008, 09:52 AM
For TWO years, at least. Remember, the pendulum always swings back. No matter how great today is, remember that.

Many dickheaded republicans on here crowed until their throats hurt in 2004. I remember statements that Democrats were irrelevant, they'd lost touch, they couldn't win, the only reason they'd had a President since LBJ was (1) Nixon royally f'ing up and (2) Ross Perot running in 1992. If it wasn't for that, the Republicans would've run the country outright for 30 years, blah, blah, blah.

They were morons then. Let's not be morons now.

Agreed

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:52 AM
Like I said, but you seemed to have ignored. It's not about opposition to policy, it's about tone and rhetoric. Are Republicans going to allow the country to unify by laying off the "communist", "baby killer", "muslim", "terrorist" garbage and allow for a period of national healing? Or are they going to try to drive the wedges further and deeper and scar the country futher?

Dems put country first in the first few months of Bush's Presidency, and took a wait and see approach initially. I expect the same from Republicans, though I doubt we will see it.

You have a different memory than I. I seem to recall Democrats being rather loud and nasty after the 2000 election.

Surely you don't think that Democrats are above such things.

jAZ
11-04-2008, 09:53 AM
They are just words. If Barack Hussein is elected, I'll be very interested to see what actions transpire.

So are "some rather radical ideas" and "such radicalism", no?

dirk digler
11-04-2008, 09:53 AM
Why would we do that? It's going to be a hoot if he is elected.

I am mostly talking about showing up tonight or tomorrow to take their medicine. I doubt they will show up though. If they do I will give them their due.

If McCain wins I will be here for your enjoyment and abuse.

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:55 AM
So are "some rather radical ideas" and "such radicalism", no?

Yes, obviously. I don't implement policy. You don't think that what he proposes to do with health coverage is a radical departure from what we have now?

triple
11-04-2008, 09:55 AM
Why would we do that? It's going to be a hoot if he is elected.

i picture it being like this: i'm on the titanic, i know that i'm not one of the few who are getting into a lifeboat. might as well see if there is a bottle of scotch left behind the bar.

Donger
11-04-2008, 09:56 AM
I am mostly talking about showing up tonight or tomorrow to take their medicine. I doubt they will show up though. If they do I will give them their due.

If McCain wins I will be here for your enjoyment and abuse.

I hope to stop by tonight. We'll see.

And, I would take no pleasure in a McCain victory other than it means that Barack Hussein lost.

Niblet2008
11-04-2008, 09:58 AM
Obama can do no wrong in liberals eyes.

jAZ
11-04-2008, 09:58 AM
You have a different memory than I. I seem to recall Democrats being rather loud and nasty after the 2000 election.

Surely you don't think that Democrats are above such things.
There was absolutely a "he's our president now, let's see what he does" sentiment. It was reflected by the vast majority of the media at the time. That you missed it probably says more about your blinders. I was actively pushing that sentiment myself right here on the planet at the time.

dirk digler
11-04-2008, 09:58 AM
I hope to stop by tonight. We'll see.

And, I would take no pleasure in a McCain victory other than it means that Barack Hussein lost.

If McCain wins I expect all the righties to celebrate and have fun at our expense. That will be good times. :D

NewChief
11-04-2008, 09:59 AM
For TWO years, at least. Remember, the pendulum always swings back. No matter how great today is, remember that.

Many dickheaded republicans on here crowed until their throats hurt in 2004. I remember statements that Democrats were irrelevant, they'd lost touch, they couldn't win, the only reason they'd had a President since LBJ was (1) Nixon royally f'ing up and (2) Ross Perot running in 1992. If it wasn't for that, the Republicans would've run the country outright for 30 years, blah, blah, blah.

They were morons then. Let's not be morons now.

Oh man, do I remember that. They were convinced that the DNC was dead and liberalism had been exercised from America. It was a clear judgement that Americans had forever switched to conservative ideology.

jAZ
11-04-2008, 10:01 AM
Yes, obviously. I don't implement policy. You don't think that what he proposes to do with health coverage is a radical departure from what we have now?
We've learned that radical is just a word, and really means nothing? And even if you overlook that fact, the reality is that taking a 1/4 step towards the public health program that serves the rest of the 1st world countries very effectively is hardly radical. Trying to hold onto a disasterous system is radical.

Donger
11-04-2008, 10:01 AM
There was absolutely a "he's our president now, let's see what he does" sentiment. It was reflected by the vast majority of the media at the time. That you missed it probably says more about your blinders. I was actively pushing that sentiment myself right here on the planet at the time.

Well, I wasn't here at the time. As to your statement, that's just a fact. Acknowledging fact isn't something gracious.

If Barack Hussein is elected, I'll recognize him as POTUS (of course). But unless he magically turns into a conservative, I'll oppose him.

triple
11-04-2008, 10:01 AM
If McCain wins I expect all the righties to celebrate and have fun at our expense. That will be good times. :D

to me, coming so near the edge of the socialist cliff and stopping just in time would not be much of a cause for celebration.

Donger
11-04-2008, 10:03 AM
We've learned that radical is just a word, and really means nothing? And even if you overlook that fact, the reality is that taking a 1/4 step towards the public health program that serves the rest of the 1st world countries very effectively is hardly radical. Trying to hold onto a disasterous system is radical.

I can't understand why you don't embrace it. His whole campaign has been based on "change." If elected and he implements national health coverage, it will be a massive, and radical, change from what we have now.

Don't be afraid of it. Embrace it. It's what you wanted and what you voted for.

dirk digler
11-04-2008, 10:05 AM
to me, coming so near the edge of the socialist cliff and stopping just in time would not be much of a cause for celebration.

If he wins you should celebrate and make fun of us. That is what we are going to do to you :)

triple
11-04-2008, 10:07 AM
If he wins you should celebrate and make fun of us. That is what we are going to do to you :)

i don't think dancing on the grave of capitalism sounds like a lot of fun.

triple
11-04-2008, 10:08 AM
I can't understand why you don't embrace it. His whole campaign has been based on "change." If elected and he implements national health coverage, it will be a massive, and radical, change from what we have now.

Don't be afraid of it. Embrace it. It's what you wanted and what you voted for.

lowering expectations, already in progress

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 10:14 AM
Obama can do no wrong in liberals eyes.

First, I disagree, thoroughly. He's hardly perfect.

Second, many here have staunchly defended Bush's policies, even under the most adverse of circumstances. Do you expect differently from liberals when their boy is in office?

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 10:20 AM
i don't think dancing on the grave of capitalism sounds like a lot of fun.

:rolleyes:

patteeu
11-04-2008, 10:35 AM
Like I said, but you seemed to have ignored. It's not about opposition to policy, it's about tone and rhetoric. Are Republicans going to allow the country to unify by laying off the "communist", "baby killer", "muslim", "terrorist" garbage and allow for a period of national healing? Or are they going to try to drive the wedges further and deeper and scar the country futher?

Dems put country first in the first few months of Bush's Presidency, and took a wait and see approach initially. I expect the same from Republicans, though I doubt we will see it.

If by putting the country first and taking a wait and see approach you mean loudly protesting the illegitimate presidency, then I guess I can see your point. :rolleyes:

MGRS13
11-04-2008, 12:04 PM
If Obama won he would govern from the center, but if he was to step in and declare he has a mandate and that he is the "decider" sent to lead the country by god himself you wouldn't think that was ok? I mean because for 8 years thats been just fine right?

patteeu
11-04-2008, 12:11 PM
If Obama won he would govern from the center, but if he was to step in and declare he has a mandate and that he is the "decider" sent to lead the country by god himself you wouldn't think that was ok? I mean because for 8 years thats been just fine right?

Who are you talking to and what are you saying to them?

Taco John
11-04-2008, 12:12 PM
If Obama won he would govern from the center, but if he was to step in and declare he has a mandate and that he is the "decider" sent to lead the country by god himself you wouldn't think that was ok? I mean because for 8 years thats been just fine right?



ZING!

Calcountry
11-04-2008, 12:44 PM
I've asked whether Repubilcans will extend a "honeymoon" period in the way that Dems did in the first few months of Bush's Administration. There was a need to put the ugliness of the 2000 election behind us at that time, and while we didn't let Bush have his way on every issue, there was a general tone of commitment to patient bi-partisanship. It wasn't until the summer that things started getting back to political normalcy. Then 9/11 and things really became "unified" for the most part... until the "Axis of Evil" remarks.

I'd expect the same this year.

I don't know that I will get it. But I expect it.You shouldn't expect it. Any political party that puts its political expediency above the safety of troops that are at war shouldn't expect it.

How come your party didn't cut off funds and demand the troops come home? For expediency of course. The leaders of your party care more about obtaining and maintaining power than the well being of the country, er Kountry, becaue you don't like the country as it traditionally has been. You need the country to suck so you can go in and play the hero for votes. If fact, you will do things to MAKE the country continue to suck so that the dependency class will grow to permanent majority status.

That is the democrats game plan, always has been. It works well for Elitists and attorneys.

MGRS13
11-04-2008, 01:02 PM
Who are you talking to and what are you saying to them?

Donger. Pretending you don't get it is a great defense.

ClevelandBronco
11-04-2008, 01:20 PM
I've asked whether Repubilcans will extend a "honeymoon" period in the way that Dems did in the first few months of Bush's Administration. There was a need to put the ugliness of the 2000 election behind us at that time, and while we didn't let Bush have his way on every issue, there was a general tone of commitment to patient bi-partisanship. It wasn't until the summer that things started getting back to political normalcy. Then 9/11 and things really became "unified" for the most part... until the "Axis of Evil" remarks.

I'd expect the same this year.

I don't know that I will get it. But I expect it.

You will not get it.

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2008, 01:22 PM
You will not get it.

What Republicans?

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 01:37 PM
Damn right. There is 8 years of Bush bashing to pay back.

Are you implying that it's been unwarranted?

REALLY?

BigCatDaddy
11-04-2008, 01:40 PM
Are you implying that it's been unwarranted?

REALLY?

Some of it, yes. It's now our turn to sit back and give what we have gotten the last 8 years and it will probably be worse in all honesty.

memyselfI
11-04-2008, 01:41 PM
I've noticed that many of you, in the event of a Barack Hussein victory, seem to think that Republicans/Conservatives are just going to roll over and merely accept whatever radicalism the administration and Congress try to implement.

Why is that?

Have you gotten so familiar with Bush (and others) that you think the opposition is going to sit in the corner and shudder?

I welcome your input. Thanks.

Because many of them did it themselves for DUHbya????

Dave Lane
11-04-2008, 01:41 PM
Surely you've witnessed and acknowledged the liberal onslaught the last eight years, yes?

Really? are you joking?

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 01:44 PM
Well, I wasn't here at the time. As to your statement, that's just a fact. Acknowledging fact isn't something gracious.

If Barack Hussein is elected, I'll recognize him as POTUS (of course). But unless he magically turns into a conservative, I'll oppose him.

I'm not so afraid of Obama as President.

I am however very scared of Pelosi, Frank & Reid.

If Obama wins in an electoral landslide, I fear that the 3 Stooges will take that as a mandate to implement all kinds of crazy government programs.

Radar Chief
11-04-2008, 01:45 PM
Really? are you joking?

Donger has no sense of humor, that Iím aware of.

memyselfI
11-04-2008, 01:45 PM
I've asked whether Repubilcans will extend a "honeymoon" period in the way that Dems did in the first few months of Bush's Administration. There was a need to put the ugliness of the 2000 election behind us at that time, and while we didn't let Bush have his way on every issue, there was a general tone of commitment to patient bi-partisanship. It wasn't until the summer that things started getting back to political normalcy. Then 9/11 and things really became "unified" for the most part... until the "Axis of Evil" remarks.

I'd expect the same this year.

I don't know that I will get it. But I expect it.

You are fuggin crazy and have really gone over the deep end regarding NO. Listen, DEMS had no spine when they let up on DUHbya for even FIVE MINUTES. They enabled MOST of what he's done if not all and to see them now expecting CONS to just roll over and return the favor is hilarious.

I'll be deeply disappointed if the CONS forget their opposition and begrudgingly accept the new POTUS as their president even if they didn't support him. I wouldn't do it for DUHbya and won't do it for NObama. If CONS have any stones they won't make the same mistake DEMS did and will ensure NObama's stay in the WH is a short one. Unlike the idiot DEMS.

Just because DEMS bent over and allowed themselves to be pounded doesn't mean they have any right to expect CONS to do the same.

Donger
11-04-2008, 01:45 PM
Really? are you joking?

No, I'm not joking.

Donger
11-04-2008, 01:47 PM
I'm not so afraid of Obama as President.

I am however very scared of Pelosi, Frank & Reid.

If Obama wins in an electoral landslide, I fear that the 3 Stooges will take that as a mandate to implement all kinds of crazy government programs.

Huh? You think that Barack Hussein will be restrained? Will exercise veto power?

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 01:48 PM
Some of it, yes. It's now our turn to sit back and give what we have gotten the last 8 years and it will probably be worse in all honesty.

With all due respect, you're a fucking moron.

Bush will go down in history as the absolute worst president in American history. His approval ratings are in the 20's. His administration has been involved in scandal after scandal after scandal, yet you think he shouldn't be criticized?

Talk about living in a freaking bubble.

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 01:49 PM
Huh? You think that Barack Hussein will be restrained? Will exercise veto power?

No.

What I'm stating that Obama is no where near as "Left" as Pelosi, Reid & Frank.

And THOSE are the people that will go crazy if there's a so-called "mandate" in terms of an electoral victory.

BigCatDaddy
11-04-2008, 01:50 PM
Really? are you joking?

Please, I know you watch Bill Mahr.

BigCatDaddy
11-04-2008, 01:52 PM
With all due respect, you're a ****ing moron.

Bush will go down in history as the absolute worst president in American history. His approval ratings are in the 20's. His administration has been involved in scandal after scandal after scandal, yet you think he shouldn't be criticized?

Talk about living in a freaking bubble.

Nice strawman. I simply said he got too much criticism and yes some was warranted, no doubt. However, every little negative thing that happened became his fault according to those on the left.

headsnap
11-04-2008, 01:53 PM
No.

What I'm stating that Obama is no where near as "Left" as Pelosi, Reid & Frank.


:spock:

just because the most Liberal senator is running to the center/right doesn't mean he will govern that way...

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 02:00 PM
Nice strawman. I simply said he got too much criticism and yes some was warranted, no doubt. However, every little negative thing that happened became his fault according to those on the left.

First off, I'm not on the "Left".

Secondly, George W. Bush may not be responsible for every negative "thing" that happened during his reign, but he's sure as hell responsible for 95% of those "things", either directly by his actions or indirectly by his non-actions.

If you can't see that, I guess you're in the 20% of people that approve of his work as President.

BigCatDaddy
11-04-2008, 02:04 PM
First off, I'm not on the "Left".

Secondly, George W. Bush may not be responsible for every negative "thing" that happened during his reign, but he's sure as hell responsible for 95% of those "things", either directly by his actions or indirectly by his non-actions.

If you can't see that, I guess you're in the 20% of people that approve of his work as President.

Actually I would probably not approve, but I don't think it's as bad as some, such as you claim. Of the last 4 presidents I would say Reagan was #1, Clinton #2, Bush #3, Carter #4.

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 02:25 PM
Actually I would probably not approve, but I don't think it's as bad as some, such as you claim. Of the last 4 presidents I would say Reagan was #1, Clinton #2, Bush #3, Carter #4.

ROFL

Carter was not a good President but JFC, there's no way his presidency was worse that the past 8 years of Bush.

Not even close.


Carter didn't start an ill-advised war. Carter didn't preside over an economy that saw the Dow Jones lose more than 6,000 points and trillions of dollars of worth. Carter didn't preside over an administration that didn't respond to one the largest natural disasters in the nation's history. Need I go on?

While Carter was far from a successful president, he has been an asset as a statesman and foreign diplomat.

Bush would be lucky to get a job at a car wash after his presidency.

Calcountry
11-04-2008, 02:30 PM
ROFL

Carter was not a good President but JFC, there's no way his presidency was worse that the past 8 years of Bush.

Not even close.


Carter didn't start an ill-advised war. Carter didn't preside over an economy that saw the Dow Jones lose more than 6,000 points and trillions of dollars of worth. Carter didn't preside over an administration that didn't respond to one the largest natural disasters in the nation's history. Need I go on?

While Carter was far from a successful president, he has been an asset as a statesman and foreign diplomat.

Bush would be lucky to get a job at a car wash after his presidency.Oh yeah, he was a great foreign statesman, for the Iranians.

Double diget unemployment, double digit inflation, interest rates near 20 %, odd even gas rationing, wear a sweater.

Boycotted the Summer Olympics in Moscow, but he did preside over a USA Hockey win.

Dick Bull
11-04-2008, 02:31 PM
ROFL

Carter was not a good President but JFC, there's no way his presidency was worse that the past 8 years of Bush.

Not even close.


Carter didn't start an ill-advised war. Carter didn't preside over an economy that saw the Dow Jones lose more than 6,000 points and trillions of dollars of worth. Carter didn't preside over an administration that didn't respond to one the largest natural disasters in the nation's history. Need I go on?

While Carter was far from a successful president, he has been an asset as a statesman and foreign diplomat.

Bush would be lucky to get a job at a car wash after his presidency.

Bush doesn't need a job. The last 8 years were set up to protect his interests.

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 02:33 PM
Oh yeah, he was a great foreign statesman, for the Iranians.

Double diget unemployment, double digit inflation, interest rates near 20 %, odd even gas rationing, wear a sweater.

Boycotted the Summer Olympics in Moscow, but he did preside over a USA Hockey win.

Hey, I said he wasn't a good president. And I was referring to his diplomacy AFTER his presidency.

What else do you want me to say?

Or do you just read what you want to read?

Radar Chief
11-04-2008, 02:37 PM
Hey, I said he wasn't a good president. And I was referring to his diplomacy AFTER his presidency.

What else do you want me to say?

Or do you just read what you want to read?

Wow. Itís pointed out to you why Carter was a worse president but itís someone else thatís only reading what they want to read.

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 02:38 PM
Wow. It’s pointed out to you why Carter was a worse president but it’s someone else that’s only reading what they want to read.

So you believe that the four years under Carter was worse than the past eight years under Bush?

Are you FUCKING kidding me?

Wow. This forum is a clear illustration of how and why America is so divided.

Radar Chief
11-04-2008, 02:42 PM
So you believe that the four years under Carter was worse than the past eight years under Bush?

Yes, without a doubt. For the reasons given.

Are you ****ING kidding me?

No, not in the least.

Wow. This forum is a clear illustration of how and why America is so divided.

Exactly. Idiots like you will continue believing what you are told to believe in spite of any evidence presented.

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 02:49 PM
Yes, without a doubt. For the reasons given.



No, not in the least.



Exactly. Idiots like you will continue believing what you are told to believe in spite of any evidence presented.

Um, excuse me. YOU are the fucking idiot here, asswipe.

How many Americans lost their lives in a terrorist attack while Carter was president?

How many Americans lost their lives in one of biggest natural disasters in American history because of the failure to respond by President Carter?

How many Americans lost millions and millions of dollars while Carter was president. Was Carter president when the market lost half its value or more than 1.5 TRILLION Dollars?

How many Americans lost their lives or were wounded under Carter due to entering into an unjustified war?

Please, let me know. Fuckface.

Radar Chief
11-04-2008, 02:57 PM
Um, excuse me. YOU are the ****ing idiot here, asswipe.

How many Americans lost their lives in a terrorist attack while Carter was president?


How many did Bush leave hostage in a foreign country?

How many Americans lost their lives in one of biggest natural disasters in American history because of the failure to respond by President Carter?

So itís Bushís fault the Governer of LA and the Mayor of NO abandoned their people?

How many Americans lost millions and millions of dollars while Carter was president. Was Carter president when the market lost half its value or more than 1.5 TRILLION Dollars?

Carter presided over the worst recession our country has seen since the great depression. Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment. Weíve yet to experience another economy that bad.
If you knew anything about the economy or American history beyond partisan talking points youíd already know to not go there.

How many Americans lost their lives or were wounded under Carter due to entering into an unjustified war?

Many of the problems we face now are precisely because of Carterís inaction as a president.

Please, let me know. ****face.

But at least youíre not too much of a pussy to discuss disagreements rationally resorting to petty name calling instead.

Donger
11-04-2008, 03:00 PM
Sorry. Bush is not going to be mentioned anywhere near Washington, Lincoln, etc. (mostly because of Iraq, right now anyway), but Carter was a f*ck up of monumental proportions.

ClevelandBronco
11-04-2008, 03:01 PM
Carter was not a good President...

What makes me think you weren't an adult during the Jimmy Carter presidency?

What makes me wonder whether you were even born before or during the Jimmy Carter presidency?

I experienced it. Did you?

triple
11-04-2008, 03:05 PM
No.

What I'm stating that Obama is no where near as "Left" as Pelosi, Reid & Frank.


Primary season Obama or general election season Obama?

Radar Chief
11-04-2008, 03:05 PM
What makes me think you weren't an adult during the Jimmy Carter presidency?

What makes me wonder whether you were even born before or during the Jimmy Carter presidency?

I experienced it. Did you?

Iím doubting Dane had even been born yet.
I was just a kid during the Carter admin and I at least remember how bad it was.
Bush will never be mentioned as a top 10 president but to claim heís the worst is pure stupidity and shows a complete ignorance of history.

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 03:26 PM
What makes me think you weren't an adult during the Jimmy Carter presidency?

What makes me wonder whether you were even born before or during the Jimmy Carter presidency?

I experienced it. Did you?

Yes. I was 10 and living in Missouri.

And I don't recall my father losing 40% of his stock portfolio.

As I stated earlier, Carter was not a good president.

But he was better than Bush. And history will prove it.

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 03:31 PM
How many did Bush leave hostage in a foreign country?

So we're going to play this game?



So it’s Bush’s fault the Governer of LA and the Mayor of NO abandoned their people?

Typical Bush defender response. Blame the people of Louisiana and not the president or his administration.

Carter presided over the worst recession our country has seen since the great depression. Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment. We’ve yet to experience another economy that bad.
If you knew anything about the economy or American history beyond partisan talking points you’d already know to not go there.

Partisan talking points? I've fucking voted Republican in every election from 1984 to 2000. I'm the furthest thing from partisan, Bucko.

Yes, he did. But that was help in part (and no small part) by the Vietnam War and the Nixon administration. To say that the economy went to shit in 18 months after he was elected and to place all the blame on Carter is ludicrous.

Many of the problems we face now are precisely because of Carter’s inaction as a president.

Such as?

But at least you’re not too much of a pussy to discuss disagreements rationally resorting to petty name calling instead.

Well, since you've called me names in the past and I didn't respond, but more to the point, your overall lack of respect for opposing opinions, I figured it was time to call you as I see you.

A Bush apologist.

Nightwish
11-04-2008, 05:07 PM
Damn right. There is 8 years of Bush bashing to pay back.
Except that about 90% of the Bush-bashing was well-earned, and much of it came from his own crowd.

BucEyedPea
11-04-2008, 05:08 PM
Well, since you've called me names in the past and I didn't respond, but more to the point, your overall lack of respect for opposing opinions, I figured it was time to call you as I see you.

A Bush apologist.

I wouldn't even bother with him Dane. It's not worth it.
That's his mode of discussion.

Nightwish
11-04-2008, 05:11 PM
Iím doubting Dane had even been born yet.
I was just a kid during the Carter admin and I at least remember how bad it was.
Bush will never be mentioned as a top 10 president but to claim heís the worst is pure stupidity and shows a complete ignorance of history.
"Best" and "worst" can be measured on a lot of different scales. Almost certainly, there are areas in which Carter will be judged the worst President, and there are areas where Bush will be. I think it's a safe bet that history will probably record them both in the bottom five.

ClevelandBronco
11-04-2008, 05:30 PM
Yes. I was 10 and living in Missouri.

And I don't recall my father losing 40% of his stock portfolio.

As I stated earlier, Carter was not a good president.

But he was better than Bush. And history will prove it.

Let's hear it for the opinion of a ten-year-old.

DaneMcCloud
11-04-2008, 10:41 PM
Let's hear it for the opinion of a ten-year-old.


Why the hate, Dude?

Guru
11-04-2008, 10:43 PM
I've noticed that many of you, in the event of a Barack Hussein victory, seem to think that Republicans/Conservatives are just going to roll over and merely accept whatever radicalism the administration and Congress try to implement.

Why is that?

Have you gotten so familiar with Bush (and others) that you think the opposition is going to sit in the corner and shudder?

I welcome your input. Thanks.

I just hope the Republican party understands that they need to get back to their conservative roots. Time to rebuild. No more geriatric candidates.

patteeu
11-05-2008, 06:17 AM
Donger. Pretending you don't get it is a great defense.

I'm sure it made some kind of sense to you.

Amnorix
11-05-2008, 06:52 AM
Oh yeah, he was a great foreign statesman, for the Iranians.

Double diget unemployment, double digit inflation, interest rates near 20 %, odd even gas rationing, wear a sweater.

Boycotted the Summer Olympics in Moscow, but he did preside over a USA Hockey win.

Carter was a thoroughly mediocre President, but much of the inflation and oil issues were not his fault. He's near the bottom of the list of bad Presidents, but I view Bush very differently from Carter in that Carter's problems were often from lack of action, or from being overwhelmed by events that were ultimately beyond his control by and large.

Bush went out and CREATED his own problems by his stupid governance.

Amnorix
11-05-2008, 06:54 AM
"Best" and "worst" can be measured on a lot of different scales. Almost certainly, there are areas in which Carter will be judged the worst President, and there are areas where Bush will be. I think it's a safe bet that history will probably record them both in the bottom five.

Hoover and Buchanan have two of the bottom 5 spots locked for all of history, pretty much.

I don't know if Carter gets into the bottom 5 because most of his pathetic administration didn't involve truly cataclysmic mistakes/problems that really had a massive effect on the nation.

Bush I think gets into hte bottom 10 at least, and has a real good shot at bottom 5. The economic crisis plus Iraq, if it doesn't turn out well, will doom him in the eyes of historians.

Amnorix
11-05-2008, 06:55 AM
Actually I would probably not approve, but I don't think it's as bad as some, such as you claim. Of the last 4 presidents I would say Reagan was #1, Clinton #2, Bush #3, Carter #4.

errr....

Last 4 in reverse order are Bush2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan. Carter is 5 Presidents ago.

Just FTR.

tiptap
11-05-2008, 07:15 AM
Let's hear it for the opinion of a ten-year-old.

Well I was much older. Carter was the first President to face the disconnect between enriching the Middle East by making Oil king in driving our energy needs. He was the first President to have to deal with a Shia Muslim movement.

He miss read the situation in great part because we had so little feeling for the complexity of the region. But I wonder, short of acting as an Empire, which Carter rejected outright looking to boost democracy, how we had any footing in understanding the situation.

Our actions since WW2 were little differentiated from the British and French Mandates that had "colonized" the region. And yet the region had an influx of information and technology that made the technological difference much less. We failed to engage the region and failed to see how different cultures would see our actions.

This was not a priority because of the Cold War.

BigCatDaddy
11-05-2008, 07:26 AM
errr....

Last 4 in reverse order are Bush2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan. Carter is 5 Presidents ago.

Just FTR.

My bad The Bushies are 3 & 4. Big Bush and then lil Bush.