Re: Obama, no change in strategy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kingcat
Doc.
If you look closely you'll see i was not talking in general, but on this forum with relation to it's treatment of Presidents Bush and Obama. This forum is strictly controlled by the conservative and far right viewpoint.
Nothing wrong with that,and it is not intentional, but Democrats, liberal thoughts, and to some extent non far right opinions (despite rhetoric to the contrary) are roasted here by the regulars..
Kudos on your stance that goes against the grain. I am farther to the right than you I imagine when it comes to gun laws. :)
And I'm more left on social issues. Example-I don't believe every person should be walking around with a six shooter on his hip, nor do I believe there is any circumstance where a 10 year old should be allowed to use a weapon. I also believe in a woman's choice to carry or not carry a baby to term (assuming she pays for the termination of the pregnancy). I find it hypocritical to preach about the teaching of the bible then get a divorce. I also don't care who anybody marries, whether they both have "innies", "outies" or one of each! I don't want anybody telling me to pray or not pay in school (you pray at home or in church). On all those issues, I probably disagree with most on this board. I'll argue till I'm blue in the face over it. Sometimes I'll even argue until I'm pissed because of their stupidity. Then I'll cool off and "get over it".
As for the treatment of the President, I don't disagree with you. ON THIS BOARD, Obama isn't treated well. However in general, he has been treated far better than Bush was. There is a "hands off" policy when it comes to BHO in this country. What was done to GWB could never be done to the current President. Stick an Obama head on a monkey and see what happens. Put a Hitler mustache on Obama and see what happens. Paint a target on Obama's forehead and see the reaction you get. Hang Obama in effigy and see how that is received. All those were done to Bush by liberals and not a second thought was given to it. Zero. Yet you do that to Obama and you have violated taboo. You have breached the protected one. You have stepped out of bounds of "free speech" and entered "hate speech", terrorist threats and are subject to prosecution. And that doesn't even take into account the shenanigans where if as a conservative, you found your legally tax exemptions blocked by the IRS. Yet the gov't has done nothing about it after 2 years? And its Obama that being treated unfair? Please! If he didn't want to be treated unfairly he should have stayed a community organizer.
Re: Obama, no change in strategy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doc
I typically show great respect for the office of the President. Its an incredibly difficult and important job. It has unique stresses and responsibilities. Yet when one actively spends 8 years insulting and belittling roughly 50% of the nation, I have a very hard time maintaining that level of respect. I will always respect the office. As for the man, I might like him as a person but as for doing his job, I despise him because he has done everything in his power to divide this country on every level possible.
You're just validating my point.
It's exactly what Bush did, and it's extremely fair and relevant to talk about Bush because Obama didn't create divisiveness. Do you really think that when Bush left office there was unity in this nation?
It's exactly what happened with Clinton too, and why so many despise and are fearful of a Hillary presidency. This country is very divided, although I think it's divided more than two ways now. I think both parties have split themselves, which maybe could be a good thing.
I hate to say it, but I think there's only a few options for this country to become united again, and that's by a tragic loss of lives, a civil war or the best option, a complete dismantling of the 2-party system, but once Citizens United passed, that's almost an impossible outcome.
Re: Obama, no change in strategy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doc
And I'm more left on social issues. Example-I don't believe every person should be walking around with a six shooter on his hip, nor do I believe there is any circumstance where a 10 year old should be allowed to use a weapon. I also believe in a woman's choice to carry or not carry a baby to term (assuming she pays for the termination of the pregnancy). I find it hypocritical to preach about the teaching of the bible then get a divorce. I also don't care who anybody marries, whether they both have "innies", "outies" or one of each! I don't want anybody telling me to pray or not pay in school (you pray at home or in church). On all those issues, I probably disagree with most on this board. I'll argue till I'm blue in the face over it. Sometimes I'll even argue until I'm pissed because of their stupidity. Then I'll cool off and "get over it".
As for the treatment of the President, I don't disagree with you. ON THIS BOARD, Obama isn't treated well. However in general, he has been treated far better than Bush was. There is a "hands off" policy when it comes to BHO in this country. What was done to GWB could never be done to the current President. Stick an Obama head on a monkey and see what happens. Put a Hitler mustache on Obama and see what happens. Paint a target on Obama's forehead and see the reaction you get. Hang Obama in effigy and see how that is received. All those were done to Bush by liberals and not a second thought was given to it. Zero. Yet you do that to Obama and you have violated taboo. You have breached the protected one. You have stepped out of bounds of "free speech" and entered "hate speech", terrorist threats and are subject to prosecution. And that doesn't even take into account the shenanigans where if as a conservative, you found your legally tax exemptions blocked by the IRS. Yet the gov't has done nothing about it after 2 years? And its Obama that being treated unfair? Please! If he didn't want to be treated unfairly he should have stayed a community organizer.
Doc, I love debating with you in any conversation, but I'm going to have to call BS on this. For each of these examples you listed, just google those and Obama. Better yet, add Kentucky on those and see what you get. Obama gets it just like Bush. One difference that I can say though is that there is no talking head that is the voice of a movement with disparaging remarks on the Democrat side that is leading the party race currently like Trump and the 'Birther' movement. None of those things that you mentioned(which are tactics on both sides) resonate with a Democrat front runner.
It's like listening to Ben Carson whine about how no Democrats have never faced the vetting that he's been getting. I say to him, Are you kidding me? Hillary, Obama and Kerry have all faced much worse than he ever did. Democratic front runners have groups that name themselves to vet, "Birthers", "Swift Boaters" etc. Fiorina, the same thing as Carson. Republicans have gotten it just as bad with Bush and Palin, so I'm not saying it's fair one way or the other. It's just part of the game. The more relevant you are, the deeper the criticism. Carson and Fiorina should beg for the vetting and the scrutiny. So far, the only one that's doing it to them is Trump.
This country is so vitriolic, but it's both ways. You know what, though, it's always been, but it seems like we're on an uptrend, historically speaking, that only gets solved in a few different manners that none are pretty.
I have to ask, though, if you're left on social issues, then what is it that Obama has done that has you so upset?
Re: Obama, no change in strategy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StuBleedsBlue2
You're just validating my point.
It's exactly what Bush did, and it's extremely fair and relevant to talk about Bush because Obama didn't create divisiveness. Do you really think that when Bush left office there was unity in this nation?
It's exactly what happened with Clinton too, and why so many despise and are fearful of a Hillary presidency. This country is very divided, although I think it's divided more than two ways now. I think both parties have split themselves, which maybe could be a good thing.
I hate to say it, but I think there's only a few options for this country to become united again, and that's by a tragic loss of lives, a civil war or the best option, a complete dismantling of the 2-party system, but once Citizens United passed, that's almost an impossible outcome.
You may not agree with what Bush did but he work with the democrats. His agenda had actual bipartisan support. One opposition party vote does not mean bipartisan either. Look at the vote for the Patriot Act or the vote to go back into Iraq. He had some democratic support. His approach wasn't "I don't care what the other side thinks". That's Obama's stance. Do it my way by hook or by crook. I'll executive order it or I'll buy your vote. There are Bush policies didn't like but they were brought in correctly.
As for divisiveness, you need to look farther back than Bush. I could claim it started when Clinton lied to America just as easily
Re: Obama, no change in strategy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StuBleedsBlue2
Doc, I love debating with you in any conversation, but I'm going to have to call BS on this. For each of these examples you listed, just google those and Obama. Better yet, add Kentucky on those and see what you get. Obama gets it just like Bush. One difference that I can say though is that there is no talking head that is the voice of a movement with disparaging remarks on the Democrat side that is leading the party race currently like Trump and the 'Birther' movement. None of those things that you mentioned(which are tactics on both sides) resonate with a Democrat front runner.
It's like listening to Ben Carson whine about how no Democrats have never faced the vetting that he's been getting. I say to him, Are you kidding me? Hillary, Obama and Kerry have all faced much worse than he ever did. Democratic front runners have groups that name themselves to vet, "Birthers", "Swift Boaters" etc. Fiorina, the same thing as Carson. Republicans have gotten it just as bad with Bush and Palin, so I'm not saying it's fair one way or the other. It's just part of the game. The more relevant you are, the deeper the criticism. Carson and Fiorina should beg for the vetting and the scrutiny. So far, the only one that's doing it to them is Trump.
This country is so vitriolic, but it's both ways. You know what, though, it's always been, but it seems like we're on an uptrend, historically speaking, that only gets solved in a few different manners that none are pretty.
I have to ask, though, if you're left on social issues, then what is it that Obama has done that has you so upset?
When those things are done to Obama there is a huge cry of outrage. That didn't happen with Bush. Under Bush it always OK to hang him in effigy. Do it to OBama and your racist and subject to hate speech. Stick a Bush head on a chimp and it's funny. Do it to OBama and your a racist subect to hate speech. Do people to it? Sure but to nowhere near the same degree and the level of acceptance isn't the same because the left has successfully made it unacceptable for THEIR president.
As for a voice, we will disagree here too. Let me introduce you to the likes of Al Sharpton. I know, if I were a democrat I would ignore him too
Carson and others are referring to the media. There is no doubt the media does not delve into the left like the do the right. Personally I'm sick of them whining about it. But I'm more sick of the federal govt which should not be bias allowing thing like the IRS scandal and the state e mail scandal to go on. These are both serious violations of the law and the government has stonewalled
Re: Obama, no change in strategy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kingcat
The cloning of all communications was a covert act by the Bush administration and not voted upon. You can't vote for a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.
A policy Obama gleefully continued until Snowden exposed it.
The difference being that Bush never promised to do otherwise. He was on the side of increased security and not privacy. Obama OTOH ran on and preaches a pretty liberal view of privacy, which makes him a hypocrite that Bush wasn't.
That's not to make him worse, but things like the Patriot Act probably isn't the best way to distinguish Bush and Obama b/c both have been more than willing to let the NSA push the bounds.
I see tons of disrespect of both. Bush was accused by the left of conducting an entire war just to generate more contracts for Halliburton. Hows that for insulting, that he'd send troops to their deaths for a military contract? Likewise Obama has been accused of being a sympathizer with our enemies.
Now for a tour down history lane. FDR was similarly accused at times, and as for vitriol between parties and how we are as some crisis, we're not.
In the election of 1824 the supporters of Andrew Jackson showed up at the polls with hickory sticks and threatened to beat the crap out of anyone voting for another candidate. We need to find ways to have less hatred, but the truth is that the inherent differences between the two sides are in many ways fundamentally irreconcilable.
How are we supposed to work together when at a fundamental level we have two different directions? It's easy to say we should row together but we're targeting two very different beaches. In fact that's been true a long time now, at least since the turn of the last century.
The trick is to find ways to row together when we can. There are some things we can agree on, and when we do it's about not letting all the disagreements keeping us from working together on the common ground.
Re: Obama, no change in strategy
Re: Obama, no change in strategy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doc
You may not agree with what Bush did but he work with the democrats. His agenda had actual bipartisan support. One opposition party vote does not mean bipartisan either. Look at the vote for the Patriot Act or the vote to go back into Iraq. He had some democratic support. His approach wasn't "I don't care what the other side thinks". That's Obama's stance. Do it my way by hook or by crook. I'll executive order it or I'll buy your vote. There are Bush policies didn't like but they were brought in correctly.
As for divisiveness, you need to look farther back than Bush. I could claim it started when Clinton lied to America just as easily
We're going to have to agree to disagree on these. There was some bipartisanship, such as No Child Left Behind, which was actually a Kennedy idea repackaged by Bush(for which a majority of Dems actually said was flawed, but it was important to pass a flawed piece of legislation that intends to be better, but that's where the bipartisanship ended on that matter) and certainly Democrats stood with Bush post-911, but every poor decision he made after ended that harmony. It can only be considered short-lived, at best.
It was Bush that stated in 2004, "I have earned political capital and I intend to use it", do you not remember that? How more than "I don't care what the other side thinks" can you get from a statement like that. He certainly used it and it failed, which is why Obama is in office today and Trump is your party front-runner.
It seems to me that you completely ignore some facts(maybe conveniently too). When Obama was senator, he had a relatively effective working relationship across the aisle, most notably with Tom Coburn. When he was elected, he made many attempts to work with Senate and House leadership, especially when it came to Healthcare forums, debt-ceiling discussions and many other topics. Nothing came from them. We can debate the fault there, but a real reason why those on the far left disapprove with Obama is from the fact that even knowing that a party-line vote would occur for all his key pieces to his agenda, he still capitulated on key points of his proposals in an effort to compromise. What are you supposed to do when you were elected based on your ideas and early on, the Senate leadership vows to make you a one term President and obstruct everything for which you were elected, and the party actually follows through with it? The big difference between Bush and Obama is spending political capital. Bush did it without reservation, and Obama is reluctant to. While Obama's outreach to the other side isn't at a Clinton level, it's significantly better than Bush's attempts. At least Obama considered and actually appointed Republicans to the cabinet. I think this is a very fair assessment to Obama working across the aisle.
Finally, I didn't say or attempt to imply that the visceral partisanship started with Bush, and if I did it imply that, I want to set the record straight. I have my own theories about how/when it started, but that's a whole other discussion. It shouldn't matter how it started anymore, but how are we going to fix it? I can tell you one way it won't get fixed, obstructionism. Is there a candidate in the election today that actually has an idea how to unite? I don't think so. We're just going to head down the same road, no matter who gets elected.
Re: Obama, no change in strategy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StuBleedsBlue2
We're going to have to agree to disagree on these. There was some bipartisanship, such as No Child Left Behind, which was actually a Kennedy idea repackaged by Bush(for which a majority of Dems actually said was flawed, but it was important to pass a flawed piece of legislation that intends to be better, but that's where the bipartisanship ended on that matter) and certainly Democrats stood with Bush post-911, but every poor decision he made after ended that harmony. It can only be considered short-lived, at best.
Post 9-11 harmony ended in large part because the Dems thought they had no chance to win the White House in 2004 by being in harmony with the Bush Administration.
