The truth about are political discussion

Nothing else to think. I check in to see if you've become more receptive to other people's opinion and find its the same ole routine.

Yada, yada, yada, yada, poor Obama.

Same message you came in with. MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER.

If you have a different song, I havent heard it.

 

Ok I see, your not interested in an honest dialog.................got it.

 

Did I not post examples?

 

This right here tells me everything I need to know about where you’re at:

"No, but Hussein Obama does - - every day."

There are folks on the right in here that I have very good, civil, respectful, deep conversations with. When you’re ready to get serious and stop with all of the derogatory insults and one line quips get back to me.

 

When Hussein Obama is ready to get serious and stop with all of the derogatory insults negotiation can begin.

 

If people were allowed to get a copy of the fee schedule from their health insurance company and found out how little they pay for each service billed to them where most of it must be written off per contract with the provider of care, they would be shocked and very angry. Obamacare if it were honest and fair would make this information available to the insured since we are now mandated for coverage.

What we pay in premiums could cover 100% of the charges submitted to health insurance companies but as it is right now all services are only paid a third of the total charges submitted. If the public was allowed those reduced rates, we wouldn't need the insurance company because healthcare would be affordable for most people.

Which is why this mandate is extortion at best and it only serves the self interest of those profiting off of our well being.

 

Actually he said it just days after he became President. Obama to GOP: 'I won'

Which is interesting because everything you said in the above is predicated on your impression that Obama said that after he won his healthcare victory, not, as you said, "how could a newly elected president say that just because he recently won his first election, and had a majority in the house, that the law was going to pass no matter what."

Now, does that change your mind on anything you said, knowing that?

Although the dialogue is great, the fact that our worldviews are so far apart I find discouraging.

 

It's seriously got to suck to be so filled with so much hate that you can't see anything past your intractable position.

No doubt you’ll write back that I’m the one filled hate, or that President Obama is the one filled with hate.

As that seems to be the limit to which your capable of answering posts.....

I wish I could say it’s been a pleasure but…………………..

 

Half of your post was you being asinine and speaking rhetorically. I dissected it because you were, just as you are now, getting carried away. I thought you wanted answers? I'm giving them to you, so please quit it with this.

Surely you've heard of people being in the Center? Center-right? Do you honestly think no one in either Party is a centrist?

There has been much Coverage about the spats between the "establishment" Republicans and TEA partiers, Chris Christie vs Rand Paul, do you think that wasn't because of a difference in ideology?

I didn't call him anything, look back. I said he wasn't a Conservative in response to you calling him one. Anyone who takes that stance on the Constitution is categorically not Conservative.

You are aware that there is a Conservative side to the Supreme Court, correct? and it wasn't they who he was catering to in making is his arguments for the ACA, it was the Liberal side, the Justices who wished to read the Commerce Clause as a National Powers Clause. However much he knows about the Constitution, you can't argue as to what position he's been taking on it.

And yet, he's made blunders in understanding it:

1. He's tried to make appointments on his own while Congress was not in Recess. The Supreme Court struck him down on this.

2. He tried to put forth a Federal registry for priests. The Supreme Court struck him down on this too.

3. His Justice Department has been trolling through the phone records of reporters for the Associated Press.

4. He tried to unilaterally attack Syria until the domestic backlash was so great that he backed off.

5. His Drone Strike Policy, and his personal kill list.

6. He Confiscated Congress's Authority to write bills for raising revenue and borrow money on the credit of the United States.

7. He signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which allows military detention of American citizens without trial.

8. He defends the NSA program as "Constitutional", because the NSA "are not listening to it or reading" the information they collect. Which is a non-starter, as they have no right to gather that information to begin with.


I hold the President's fidelity to the Constitution is the same to when he shows fidelity to Keynesian, or simply Economics in general: Convenient when he thinks it gives him the power to do something, but the moment it takes issue with anything he wants to do, he ignores it.
The question is whether or not he ignores them intentionally, and neither answer is flattering.

He wasn't a Professor of Law (much less one of Constitutional law), that requires Tenure, and a body of legal scholarship, neither of which he has. Rather, he was part-time lecturer, and one of his courses was "Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection", which demonstrates what I said above: he focuses on what he likes. The other courses :"Voting Rights and the Democratic Process," and "Current Issues in Racism and the Law."

You'd be surprised.. Also, Geoffrey R. Stone, for someone at Chicago Law specifically.

I've listed to you what we believe so we could have an informed discussion about it, your answer was instead to correct me, and dictate my beliefs to me. You're hitting me with truck loads of cognitive dissonance: do you want answers or not? Because answers, require you to understand what our position is.

 

You mean this article:

“President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.”

"The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said."

Can you produce the names of these “mysterious sources", because I sure would love to see some credible names linked to credible news organizations here.

No, not an impression, I watched every ounce of footage when the healthcare debates were raging and unless the president said “I won” (meaning I’m not going to negotiate with republicans) off camera, I would have heard it, and so would the rest of us that watched intently.

Honestly I don't have a lot of faith in the article because that "I won" comment was a talking point we heard from the right that went on for weeks, and Frankly they couldn't prove he said it then, and I still haven't seen or heard anything to convince me he ever did.

Like I stated in my previous post, I did in-fact hear him say it after the bill was signed into a law......but not before.

No because respectfully Lil Mike I have a problem with any articles where unnamed “sources” make claims about things that people say. I’d say the same thing if these things were said about a conservative from a liberal leaning news organization.

I don’t feel as though our roles are to change each other’s minds or philosophy’s, as much as they should be to shed some light on certain things that the other has never seen or heard before.

The president's got roughly three more years in office and we get to start this all over the again. I of course am rooting for Hillary, and I really hope that she not only runs but wins.

I don’t see anybody on the right that has proven him or herself as a viable candidate at this time, and the one guy I do like on the right (Jon Huntsman) probably won’t run.

One more thing, this is a link to a web site dedicated to republicans for the president, you might want to check it out, maybe you’ll be the one who has a change of heart after reading it………………….

http://www.republicansforobama.org/firstterm

 

You get an A+ for all of your research.

You get extra credit points for giving examples of where you believe the president has disrespected and/or disenfranchised the Constitution.

You get my respect for believing so passionately in all that you have brought forth.

But unfortunately you don’t get to change my brain from un-seeing and un-hearing everything it’s seen & heard in the past five years that have convinced me and millions of others that the president has a severe conservative side to him.

A conservative side that republicans refuse to see, and that progressives refuse to forgive him for.

Check it out……………

http://www.obamatheconservative.com/

 

I'm not asking you to. But I' am saying that you're misidentifying the ideological backing for what he's doing. It's not simply "Conservative" or "Progressive", there are other stances in-between, and above and below.

I went through you websites entire list, here are my Conclusions:

1. HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

The Constitution demands a rigid defense of Individual Sovereignty. Every single one of these things, violates that Sovereignty. This not Conservative, this is Nationalist. It's a viewpoint Democrats and Republicans may come to the table agreeing on, as it offers answers for tough choices, but not necessarily the right answers.

2. THE WARS, MILITARISM, THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD

There are many interventionists in the Republican party, this is true. But whom started this practice? I invite you to recall the Truman Doctrine for that answer. And then I wish to bring your attention to Democrats whom were calling for a strike on Syria. In short, it's clearly Bipartisan, but is it Conservative?

Interventionism seeks to shape the world through force into "something better", not understanding that the material they're working with, human beings, is not as malleable as they may want to believe. We are currently living in an era where Democracy is spreading to nations whom have no (classical) liberal traditions for respecting minority rights and due process, as such, they frequently fall victim to despotic majorities (Or minorities, as in the case with Syria).

We, have no "formula" that can solve such a problem in a timely manner. To go to a nation, rebuild it from the ground up, and foster a western-like appreciation for civil rights and transparent legal system, is process that takes decades, if not a century.

South Korea nearly failed, they had a dictator, but a popular uprising put him in his place, and he was kept in place by our military forces who supported the uprising. But that was over 30 years after the Korean war had already fallen into stalemate it exists today. The American people do not, and rightfully so, have the patience to wait that long for results to accrue. We're simply playing with fire, and in the meantime, our boys and girls are dying for a cause that may very well be meaningless.

It failed in Vietnam, it failed in Cuba, it failed in the string of "Banana Republics", and it may very well have failed in Iraq. We aren't batting.500 or .200, Japan, South Korea, and whatever small countries we've managed to "adjust" are not a precedent to do this whenever we feel like it. It should be a means of last resort, when we face an enemy that given us no choice.

... Also, see John McCain's "Wacko Bird" Comment on Rand Paul and Justin Amish. It's not hard to see who the true Conservative are there.

Two things I'll comment on in particular:

IRAQ

He followed the Bush timetable to get out, a time table Bush would have extended because he would have seen the need to stay.

Your source says Obama "Lobbied to keep thousands of AMericans in Iraq", but the fact is he lobbied in bad faith, he was asking to keep a smaller force of less than 20,000 soldiers, which is too small to defend itself. The Iraqi Givernment gave indication that they'd be willing to accept a force which could continue running security operations with them, but they wouldn't accept a presence they would of had to waste their own resources defending.

DRUG WAR

Bi-Partisan Support, Bi-Partisan criticism. Started by Nixon, expanded by Jimmy Carter, this is just another Nationalist issue. Conservatism responses ranges from neutrality, to abhorrence that this is resulted in a police State for many in this country. It does not however, support it.

3. CORPORATIONS, SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Let me ask you, do you question that the Conservative economic policy, is Free Market? If you do, I would ask why, if you don't, then this explains itself.

A Free market emphasis isn't just low regulations and low taxes, it's also, the Gov't should not give money to businesses. Businesses need to rise & fall based on their own merits, how well they can provide value to the consumer. If they are instead just responding to political incentives and taking money from the public coffers, they are not doing this.

I love nuclear energy, but I don't want the Gov't giving Nuclear power companies subsidized loans to erect their plants. They need to respond to market forces, not Government direction.

Now that covers 3.1-3.3, for 3.4 onward

Social Security, Ostensibly, wanting to cut Social Security and MEdicare might qualify as a Conservative move, if it weren't for us knowing why Obama wants to do it: To have money to spend on other things. We can quite clearly see this with Obamacare itself, we decreased payments by $700 Billion over the next decade, to help pay for the subsidies and the fixed costs of the ACA exchanges. It's not cutting spending, it simply changing what we spend the money on.

Tax Cuts: the Article is listing a compromise he was forced into by Republicans, where he didn't raise taxes on the $200,000 bracket, but instead created a new bracket, starting at about $400,000, which he did raise taxes on. He also raised taxes on Capital Gains.

Maybe you didn't get everyingthing you wanted, but you certianly can't call this "Conservative". A Conservative also wouldn't keep on pushing for "punishing companies" for putting jobs overseas, because a Conservative understands those jobs overseas help our economy, and indirectly our exports.

Odd enough, Steve Jobs explained a measure of this to President Obama, but it doesn't seem to have stuck.

NAFTA

Okay, this topic is a clusterf*ck. Despite its name, NAFTA isn't free trade. It had Free Trade aspects sure enough, but its comes with requirements for what Canada and Mexico have to buy from us, and other U.S.-centric Mercantile demands. You can look more into it if you want, but I don't even want to examine what Obama has said, as it would take more effort than its worth to see if what he was proposing at that time would make trade more or less Free.

Full-disclosure: I honestly have heard he had some Free-trade sympathies, and I know he recognizes Protectionism isn't really viable as a strategy anymore. If you want to take that as a surrender that on this topic he's conservative, fine, but really I just don't want to get into to.

4. SECRECY VS. TRANSPARENCY

Bush abused this power, "we're in a worldwide war" my ass, Open-ended statements shouldn't travel as justifications like this.

A great book on the topic (and 9/11) is "You're Government Failed You" by Richard C. Clarke who was his Counter-Terrorism Czar.
Secrecy a lot of times amounts to "We're trying to hide the fact that we did something dumb, and possibly illegal." The FISA courts, a step-forward in their time, are now in serious need of reform.

Conservatives don't hate transparent Governments. It is in fact A Conservative whose taken a lead to open up FISA rulings to more discretion by Congress.

ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY

All I'm seeing here is "He only went THIS far for saving us against fossil fuels", nothing Conservative.

He's still demanding the update of Coal-fire power plant emissions, or calling for their outright closures, like with this one in Craig, CO.

The Department of the Interior last year barred drilling in Alaska's Petroleum Reserve.

Oil drilling on Federal Lands has fallen dramatically sine he took office, and the President Introduced fees that, while he said would encourage companies whom already have leases for Federal land to go ahead and drill, the fact is those companies don't have the permits from the EPA they need to do so, so all the Administration is doing is extracting money from said companies, for nothing in return except that,"maybe, today, our permit will be put on the approval list".

Oh, and of course, the Keystone Pipeline, he hasn't budged on that for three years. Don't think he's going to change his mind either, do you?

5.4 Ground-level ozone limits

While I consider enforcing Air quality standards one of the EPA's legitimate functions (it'd be better if this was State run, but we'll put that aside), their ideas on ozone just don't have much bite to them. And while you might consider it Conservative that Obama didn't move standards above the one from the Bush Administration, I'd consider it Progressive that Bush rose the standards from where they were under Clinton. The current President then, is just continuing a Progressive policy, which some apparently decided wasn't progressive enough. Can't say I agree.

 

"No doubt you’ll write back that I’m the one filled hate, or that President Obama is the one filled with hate."

Taxcutter says:
Don't know about SC, but from his own statements we can safely deduce Hussein Obama is filled with either malice or stupidity. Or both.

 

Did somebody once tell you that if you referenced the president as “Hussein Obama” enough, little leprechauns would bring you a pot of gold?

Seriously dude what exactly are you getting out of habitually attempting to demean a person you’re at odds with?

Yes, I fully realize that Hussein is the president’s legal middle name but we all know what you’re trying to do, and/or say and it’s really juvenile.

People would take you a lot more seriously if cut out the BS and just stuck to facts instead of insults.

If you have sound, rational arguments as to why you don’t like the president’s policies of him as a person, then fine.

But try to concentrate & focus on those arguments rather than the childlike attempts to put him down or connect him with something evil or dark.

What you’re doing is really transparent, and beneath the way mature adults behave………………

 

As my hero so eloquently put it so many years ago in “Cool Hand Luke”

What we’ve got here, is a failure, to communicate………….

Your one of those -

Hey, did you see the beautiful blue sky today?

No, what I saw was a beautiful pale blue sky today mixed with streaks of teal & green accents, juxtaposed against white puffy clouds”

- types.

In other words: you’re taking all of this way to literally, and you’ve wrapped yourself up in so much research and academia that you’re STILL missing the point.

Let me try this from another direction.

I voted for the president and still support him despite many of the the: right leaning, conservative, center right, republicanish positions & policies he’s continued from President Bush or has initiated himself.

What I was trying to say (100 posts ago) was that the man is not the stark, extreme, screaming naked in the woods, hugging trees, liberal the right has painted him to be.

He has come right down the center on many issues, and has gone hard right on others, yet every day the right keeps screaming about how much of a commie, pinko, flaming liberal he is.

Ok, that’s it, I am completely done trying to get you to see this, and/or at least admit that there is some merit to it

Have a wonderful life, and I would strongly urge that you think about becoming a trial attorney if you’re not one already because your briefs are exhausting…………..Oh My God

 

Does this mean you'll finally leave your intro thread and join in on some other discussions? We're all in this together ya know... there's no "I" in team.

PS, tell Obama too, ok?

 

"So you're telling me there's a chance..." [that Obama is a leftist commie pinko traitor...]

[video=youtube;KX5jNnDMfxA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=KX5jNnDMfxA#t=30[/video]

 

If you’re talking to me (which, I think you are) then I would respectfully ask: what in the world are you talking about?

I've started many threads since I joined this forum and I occasionally monitor all of them and periodically answer to rebuttals & comments when I am quoted which is quite often.

Yes, we are all in this together, and I really wish you'd let go of all the negativity, and the extreme dislike (since I'm not allowed to use the word hate) you have for the president.

Please don’t tell me that on top of everything else, you also feel that the president only cares about certain groups or certain people in the country and disregards the rest?

I appreciate the fact that by being a Bush supporter you took a lot of grief, and I’m sorry for that, seriously.

But you seem to carry a lot of bitterness from those years that is keeping you from having an open mind about this president and these times.

If I asked you nicely enough would at least listen to what some of the other side has to say from time to time without allowing it to curdle your blood or curl your hair?

 

I could make you the same challenge. Any chance you could make a post without whining about poor, misaligned Barack Obama?

 

"...I fully realize that Hussein is the president’s legal middle name..."

Taxcutter says:
And I understand he's quite proud of it.

Look on the bright side. His predecessor got called "chimp" and some sort of Hitler reference more times than I can count. I could refer to him Zerobama or Nobama or something of the sort. But I don't. I use a name he is proud of, even if it reinforces the fact he is not like most Americans.

Since I was obliged to take "Chimp" for eight years, I am perfectly empowered to call this guy by his middle name. I had no problem with "Dubya."

My dislike for the current occupant is his policies. Change those and he's A-Ok regardless of what you call him.

 

How did I know like I know my name you were going to respond with that?

Seriously lady you have really got to get some new material…

I can set my watch by you…

 

Taxcutter,

You’re trying to be clever but I’m not falling for it.

You’re rebuttal insults both of our intelligence with your excuses which truly have nothing to do with the real reason why you keep referring to the president as "Hussein Obama" instead of "President Obama".

Oh yeah……I get it, and I see what you’re doing

It doesn’t matter what other people have called the previous president and you’re not a child to be playing the tit for tat game.

Yes, you’re within your God-given right to say whatever it is you want to say, and that’s cool except your causing people to be distracted with your obvious, negative bias and your telegraphing to everybody that your already opposed to any serious discussions.

Your terminology has a two-fold meaning:

A. Your subconsciously telling people that you refuse to call him President Obama because (for you) he isn’t the president of the United States. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

B. You’re subconsciously keeping the "dark", "other", "foreign", "not one of us" theme going to stir dissention and distrust. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Ultimately your free to use whatever terminology you wish regarding what to call the president (provided the moderators allow it) but making the excuse that it’s your turn to basically act as childishly as some on the left acted when President Bush was in office…………is really weak.

I leave it to you to decide what’s best for you.

 

Immediately followed by yet another post about poor, poor Mr. Obama.

Geesh, I don't know who's more pitiful... this boy president who needs so much support or his minions who fall all over themselves trying to protect him.

122 posts in... exactly what was the point of this thread?

 

His policies fairly scream: "He's not one of us!"

 

From another thread, re: White House press briefing:

"...in this briefing, Obama used the words "hostage, insane, ransom, nuclear bomb, chaos, disaster."


Taxcutter asks:
Just how much verbal respect does such a person deserve? He is clearly not willing to afford any respect, so why should he get any?