RE: Forward?

RE: Forward? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Marini -> RE: Forward? (10/29/2012 8:59:22 PM)
quote: Do you really think the President can just wave a magic wand and everything they plan on doing just happens overnight? (Especially since the "filibuster-proof Congress" only lasted for, what, a few months? And that assumes that every D and I always voted the D party line, which wasn't the case.) It doesn't work like that. No president can do all that they promise. Whether Romney wins or Obama wins a second term, they're both going to struggle against the real-world constraints of the job to get the things done that they want, and it's not all going to get done. [sm=applause.gif] Seriously, this is the point. NEITHER candidate has a magic wand and that's the point. The United States was in a world of hurt when President Obama was elected in 2008, and no President can perform miracles.

Zonie63 -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 5:29:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx This is an honest question. I'm not trying to bash the President, but what is his earnst intentions for America. I'm not Romneys biggest supporter, but I have a sincere fear that no matter how Industrial Romney might be, Obama seems to have every intention of making this country something we may not recognize nor be able too support. For those of you that fear world war with Romeny, I'm not sure that we shouldn't be concerned with civil war under Obama. What is it that most of you invision for our country if Obama were to achieve re-election? Probably more of the same. I'm rather disenchanted with both political parties at this point, so I'm inclined to blame both sides for the current mess the country is in. All this partisan bickering is taking the wrong approach and counterproductive. I doubt that there would be any kind of civil war - at least not anything organized like it was the last time. What I foresee is a general breakdown of society. The burden of debts and the shrinking of the tax base will lead to reductions in government services. Streets, highways, and bridges will continue to deteriorate. Social services will diminish, and the various safety nets put in place to ensure civil stability will evaporate. This will likely happen regardless of who is elected. The people will expect results, and if they don't see positive developments soon, then I doubt they'll stay quiet and passive for very long. The trouble is, no matter who gets elected, they're still going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. This situation has taken decades to come about - mainly due to short-sighted mismanagement and an overambitious foreign policy. There also needs to be a serious housecleaning in government - to get rid of all the waste, corruption, dead weight, etc. That's not even an ideological difference - nobody likes cheaters and bums, so why don't they do anything about it? On paper, one can argue the merits of liberalism or conservatism (or any political ideology for that matter), but when put into practice, something always tends to go awry. At this point, I think the US needs to play things a bit closer to the vest on a global scale. We're not as powerful as we once were, and frankly, the rest of the world doesn't really need our help. We should try to stay out of any world wars, although I doubt that either party is thinking along those lines. Our foreign policy will probably be our undoing. That will likely be the same regardless of who is elected.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 5:56:11 AM)
LOL......Hey you were the one that posted asking for clarity from people that supported Obama. That you don't like what you got back and it makes you uncomfortable.....nothing I can do about that. Just giving the real life view man. That it doesn't fit the cookie cutter model that fox news wants to give you that ain't my fault. In the future do yourself a favor and don't ask questions that you don't really want the answers to.

xBullx -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 7:37:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Probably more of the same. I'm rather disenchanted with both political parties at this point, so I'm inclined to blame both sides for the current mess the country is in. All this partisan bickering is taking the wrong approach and counterproductive. I doubt that there would be any kind of civil war - at least not anything organized like it was the last time. What I foresee is a general breakdown of society. The burden of debts and the shrinking of the tax base will lead to reductions in government services. Streets, highways, and bridges will continue to deteriorate. Social services will diminish, and the various safety nets put in place to ensure civil stability will evaporate. This will likely happen regardless of who is elected. The people will expect results, and if they don't see positive developments soon, then I doubt they'll stay quiet and passive for very long. The trouble is, no matter who gets elected, they're still going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. This situation has taken decades to come about - mainly due to short-sighted mismanagement and an overambitious foreign policy. There also needs to be a serious housecleaning in government - to get rid of all the waste, corruption, dead weight, etc. That's not even an ideological difference - nobody likes cheaters and bums, so why don't they do anything about it? On paper, one can argue the merits of liberalism or conservatism (or any political ideology for that matter), but when put into practice, something always tends to go awry. At this point, I think the US needs to play things a bit closer to the vest on a global scale. We're not as powerful as we once were, and frankly, the rest of the world doesn't really need our help. We should try to stay out of any world wars, although I doubt that either party is thinking along those lines. Our foreign policy will probably be our undoing. That will likely be the same regardless of who is elected. Thank you for the rational comment. I agree, a great deal with your final paragraph.

xBullx -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 8:09:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk LOL......Hey you were the one that posted asking for clarity from people that supported Obama. That you don't like what you got back and it makes you uncomfortable.....nothing I can do about that. Just giving the real life view man. That it doesn't fit the cookie cutter model that fox news wants to give you that ain't my fault. In the future do yourself a favor and don't ask questions that you don't really want the answers to. The only clarity I mentioned is about what I see in you. To define this I pulled this comment from a previous post of mine. quote: I’d love to sit here and discuss these subjects with you DYB, but it’s with ever increasing clarity that you and others here are simply cherry picking text points to spin and misrepresent in order to advance your campaign of deleterious themes and confusion. You're so busy spinning your version of subject matter and bashing Fox at times I'm not even sure we're talking about the same things. Does MSNBC give you SP's classes and weekly briefs on local and national talking points? I have come to one conclusion with regards to all the Secular Progressive hyperbole. If Obama wins and the US implodes, even if it's within the last week of his Presidency, it will be someone else’s fault; most likely Fox News and the Republicans. Concurrently, if Romney were to win and right this ship the SP talking points would be that his success would be due to the efforts of Obama's last four years One more question for you though. Have you ever met domiguy? Thanks for your normal two cents worth, DYB.

mnottertail -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 8:11:59 AM)
Well, in terms of this discourse which is now again very off track. Let's take the contrapositive, say Willard is elected, and sinks the fucking ship. Then what will the Rightwing Regressives talking points be?

xBullx -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 8:22:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, in terms of this discourse which is now again very off track. Let's take the contrapositive, say Willard is elected, and sinks the fucking ship. Then what will the Rightwing Regressives talking points be? You're correct, this is way off topic and track. But I've noticed that is an SP tactic, never seriously discuss an Obama past or furture, only the funtastic versions are acceptable, bash and distract from anyone that is trying to understand what is really going on. As to your question, at this point I'm sure that they'll be as gifted at shifting blame as your side. But, you tell me, Ron.... You're gonna anyway. I think it's important to note that I'm neither way right or left, I'm not barking an agenda for either. I intend to hold anyone and everyone accountable for their successes and failures.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 8:28:41 AM)
No, never met domiguy no. I don't hit from that side of the plate. I still don't understand your OP then. If you don't want opinions then why ask the questions? Why keep attacking me when all I did was answer to what you asked?

mnottertail -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 8:31:52 AM)
No, I am not gonna tell you. And you don't know shit about MY side, Bull. I will repeat my post 40 because it bears repeating, and it is strictly on topic, that being Obama's next four years: I see a steadily improving (but very slow) economy. I see the house and senate pretty much made up like it is today, nothing here nor there in terms of big changes. So we will limp along, and I think that Obama will issue more exectutive orders for vexing problems and emergency situations since we really dont have a legislature down there. Having said that, the course we will take if Willard is elected (still no change in legislature to my way of thinking) is more dire. But he won't use as many executive orders as Obama would. But the economy will improve slowly, and the Senate will be a bulwark against the house and Romney in the same way they are a bulwark against the house and Obama. And I for one am glad they are slapping that shit away thats coming out of the house. My side is not neo-con regressive, nor is it secular liberal, nor is it teabagger, nor is it some independent sheath cloaking a cowardly republican. I am a conservative and if you like moderate. Not what this shit is being passed off nowadays.

cloudboy -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 9:39:29 AM)
quote: - A recovered economy - All Americans having access to quality health care - Our soldiers out of Iraq - No war with Iran (unless they start it) - Good relationships with other countries - A positive image of the US around the world - An end to our dependence on foreign oil - A decreased deficit - More affordable higher education - PBS continuing to provide quality pre-K education - Our progressive tax system continuing to exist - Continuing to not torture our POWs - An end to DOMA - Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell not being reinstated Hardworking public servants in charge of Federal Agencies as opposed to a BUSH style wrecking crew. Its not clear to me how Romney would staff federal agencies, but Republicans tend to staff agencies with business-friendly, lobbyist types -- the likes of which let the Mortgage and Banking crisis wreck the US and World Economy. --Obama would prevent the US S. CT. from becoming a right wing, radical group that would further eviscerate Roe v. Wade and Campaign Finance Reforms. --An experienced President can hit the ground running.

cloudboy -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 9:45:26 AM)
quote: Obama is illiterate, totally incompetent as economy is concerned. In crisis situation the president must decide. The advisers, handlers are not useful. Obama 2008 – 2012 1.5M people crowded into the WASH DC Mall to see his inauguration, a record setting crowd for the nation’s capital. In 2008 2.5M jobs were lost, sometimes at a clip of 750K in a month. GDP shrank by 9%. Housing, Credit, and Stock Markets all collapsed. Foreclosures and evictions were rampant. The Auto Industries of GM and Chrysler faced bankruptcy. The grinding, unnecessary IRAQ war was ongoing. 100K Iraqis were dead along with 4K Americans. Torture at Abu Ghraib tarnished the US’s reputation around the world. The Onion Famously coined the following headline: Black Man Given the Worst Job in the Country Obama came in into office seeking a post-partisan world and never found one. Republicans instead dedicated their efforts to make him a one-term President. Passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 3.5M new jobs were created from June 2009 onward. Passed the Dodd Frank Wall St. Reform Act Rescued the US Auto Industry Transformed US Student Loan Industry saving $60B dollars. Upped Pell Grants with money saved. Passed Patient Protection Affordable Care Act Invested in Green Energy Development Instituted New, higher fuel efficiency standards for US Autos Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Appointed two women to the S. Court. Ended US practice of institutionalized torture. Killed OBL. Did not embroil the nation in another war. Stock Markets have bounced back since they bottomed out in 2008.

cloudboy -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 9:56:17 AM)
Bill Clinton said it best: "the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was actually pretty simple — pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in." --Bill Clinton ------ One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation. Look at his record. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the Army and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008. And he trusted that vice president to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. --Bill Clinton ---- And every one of us.... (knows) we’re never going to be right all the time... Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is always the enemy, they’re always right, and compromise is weakness. Just in the last couple of elections, they defeated two distinguished Republican senators because they dared to cooperate with Democrats on issues important to the future of the country, even national security. --Bill Clinton

xBullx -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 10:33:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail No, I am not gonna tell you. And you don't know shit about MY side, Bull. I will repeat my post 40 because it bears repeating, and it is strictly on topic, that being Obama's next four years: I see a steadily improving (but very slow) economy. I see the house and senate pretty much made up like it is today, nothing here nor there in terms of big changes. So we will limp along, and I think that Obama will issue more exectutive orders for vexing problems and emergency situations since we really dont have a legislature down there. Having said that, the course we will take if Willard is elected (still no change in legislature to my way of thinking) is more dire. But he won't use as many executive orders as Obama would. But the economy will improve slowly, and the Senate will be a bulwark against the house and Romney in the same way they are a bulwark against the house and Obama. And I for one am glad they are slapping that shit away thats coming out of the house. My side is not neo-con regressive, nor is it secular liberal, nor is it teabagger, nor is it some independent sheath cloaking a cowardly republican. I am a conservative and if you like moderate. Not what this shit is being passed off nowadays. Thanks Ron, and I had read your earlier post. As far as your position goes. I was only going off the general demeanor of your comments. It seems you don't have any love for "Willard" and I see you weighing a good deal toward the liberal side of center, even in your comment above. I had no intention of offending you, it's just that we are all judge by our comments on here, I as much as you. But that's a debate for another day.

mnottertail -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 10:51:56 AM)
I don't have any love for Willard (no quotes please, that's his real name, nothing psuedo about it). He is not only a fucking plastic fraud, he has very destructive and untutored views. Hes a shoot first and find out the situation later. Same as W. I didnt vote for Obama, and wont this time either. But thats my view of what will happen in terms of the next 4 with Obama.

Aswad -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 1:19:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx This is an honest question. Here is an honest answer, if a rather superficial one. quote: For those of you that fear world war with Romeny, I'm not sure that we shouldn't be concerned with civil war under Obama. Although I doubt civil war would be an outcome with Obama, I do think four things: (a) Civil war could be an outcome with Obama. (b) Civil war is a more likely long term outcome with Romney. (c) Civil war will be less detrimental to the USA than an external war would be. (d) An external war is substantially less likely with Obama. For instance, Obama has shown a willingness to work out a deal as regards the missile shields that NATO wants to place in Poland. Putin will not, indeed cannot, let those installations end up there. That isn't even up for debate, as far as I can tell. Yet Romney has said quite clearly he will not compromise on this point, which is tantamount to forcing a war between Russia and NATO. Some of the targets which Russia will attack if that comes to pass are in my back yard, as it happens, but also we would commit troops to such a war, which isn't a particularly happy prospect. We may consider exclusively those concerns that are internal to the USA, of course, but that fails to address that being party to a treaty with a mutual defense clause (article 5 of the NATO charter) implies a certain responsibility not to drag your allies into a war needlessly, as I would argue that GWB did a decade ago (indeed, we- like most others- told him so in no uncertain terms). Obama is pretty clear he intends to make every effort to avoid dragging his allies into needless wars, while Romney has been clear he absolutely will do just that. I'm not sure which of those is closer to «something we may not recognize nor be able too support» in your mind, but the way I hear it told, most warriors frown on hauling your comrades into a battle they didn't need to get into. And that makes me think maybe Obama would be the most recognizeable, supportable president on a point which I suspect will be close to your heart. quote: What is it that most of you invision for our country if Obama were to achieve re-election? I think that under Obama, the people of the USA will be able to rebuild the USA. IWYW, — Aswad.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 1:35:51 PM)
Communist! [sm=dunno.gif]

Aswad -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 1:59:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Communist! [sm=dunno.gif] Say what now? ETA: Doubtless, there is some humorous intent in what you said, but I would appreciate if you clarify what it is, as I didn't get it. On the surface, the statement makes as much sense as if I had called you a klansman, after all. (I'm not, just illustrating my point.) IWYW, — Aswad.

Moonhead -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 2:42:00 PM)
It's a popular Republican (or libertarian gun club nutcase, come to that) diss for anybody who talks up teh Kenyan, Aswad: if they like Obama, they must be a Marxist.

slvemike4u -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 4:29:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx This is an honest question. I'm not trying to bash the President, but what is his earnst intentions for America. I'm not Romneys biggest supporter, but I have a sincere fear that no matter how Industrial Romney might be, Obama seems to have every intention of making this country something we may not recognize nor be able too support. For those of you that fear world war with Romeny, I'm not sure that we shouldn't be concerned with civil war under Obama. What is it that most of you invision for our country if Obama were to achieve re-election? Please try to answer sincerely without all the smart-ass comments, name calling and rhetorical talking points... I understand(and saw how you replied to some others who didn't follow the rules to a tee) that you would like to restrict reply's to sincere answers to the question you posed. That's all cool,I get it and I respect it but(just knew there was a but there didn't you) before I can do that I would need to respond to the way you posed Your question. You started off by throwing out the suggestion that Obama is socialist,or has socialist leanings...and an intention to take this country socialist If you want an honest answer you must first disabuse yourself of this ridiculous notion ,or at the least learn to ask your question without prefacing it with this ignorant tripe. From there you move onto the threat that an Obama victory could presage armed insurrection within these United States of America. Where does that come from ? In the context of your "question" you seem to be implying that "patriotic" Americans so incensed at the legal re-election of the President would take up arms against the government in the hopes of disposing the duly elected Chief Executive. Where is the patriotism in that? How are we any better than a banana Republic if that is the reaction to elections that do not go "our" way ? How did that work out when 11 states tried it in objection to the election of a man named Lincoln ? You say you want an honest answer.....first you need to ask an honest question p.s. One that isn't inspired by seeing some bullshit flick made by a man with a dubious past who has his own agenda .

Aswad -> RE: Forward? (10/30/2012 4:34:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's a popular Republican (or libertarian gun club nutcase, come to that) diss for anybody who talks up teh Kenyan, Aswad: if they like Obama, they must be a Marxist. I'm aware of that. I'm taking my own advice on "attributing the least offensive characteristic that will adequately account for the observed behavior", simply put. The insult he made is no more accurate, and no less offensive, than if I were to call him a klansman (I'm not, but I pointed it out for comparison of just how inappropriate his statement is). Unlike him, I have actually lived with socialism, suffered due to that, and fought against it. So it will be better for everyone if I just set aside my assessment of him in favor of assuming there is some less offensive way to account for his behavior. Humor I don't get is the most plausible such alternative. IWYW, — Aswad.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625