Conclusion: The Left and Right are Both Nuts

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
JayRose

JayRose

New Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
19
Likes
0
Points
1
I never voted for Bush and thought he was a moron and an arrogant jerk, but you know what? The country was bigger than him. The cries on the left about how he was ruining the country turned out to be sort of hollow. We're fine.

Same thing now with Obama. The right seems unhinged by him. But we are bigger than Obama too. Don't worry, he won't/can't turn us socialist or otherwise ruin the country (he happens to be a millionaire btw, a strange socialist that would make!)

Democracy and capitalism turn out to be bigger and more powerful than political winds.
 
Your arguement is flawed. Obama isn't just a socialist, trying to push our country in that direction, but a Marxist, Fascist, Communist, Muslim, Kenyan who shouldn't even have been allowed to be president. He has an agenda of evil cloaked in Liberalism.

AND HE IS BLACK!!!!!!
 
Each side have their crazies, and each side should recognize it. Sadly this rarely happens in politics or most things in life.
 
JayRose said:
I never voted for Bush and thought he was a moron and an arrogant jerk, but you know what? The country was bigger than him. The cries on the left about how he was ruining the country turned out to be sort of hollow. We're fine.

Same thing now with Obama. The right seems unhinged by him. But we are bigger than Obama too. Don't worry, he won't/can't turn us socialist or otherwise ruin the country (he happens to be a millionaire btw, a strange socialist that would make!)

Democracy and capitalism turn out to be bigger and more powerful than political winds.
Click to expand...
Your comparison is flawed in one important way. Bush wasn't trying to change the political system: Obama is. Bush didn't cut his teeth on "Rules for Radicals": Obama did. Obama is a marxist at heart, despite what he says. Don't read his lips, watch what he does.
 
Shooter said:
Your comparison is flawed in one important way. Bush wasn't trying to change the political system: Obama is. Bush didn't cut his teeth on "Rules for Radicals": Obama did. Obama is a marxist at heart, despite what he says. Don't read his lips, watch what he does.
Click to expand...

Your lack of perspective is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
 
JayRose said:
I never voted for Bush and thought he was a moron and an arrogant jerk, but you know what? The country was bigger than him. The cries on the left about how he was ruining the country turned out to be sort of hollow. We're fine.

Same thing now with Obama. The right seems unhinged by him. But we are bigger than Obama too. Don't worry, he won't/can't turn us socialist or otherwise ruin the country (he happens to be a millionaire btw, a strange socialist that would make!)

Democracy and capitalism turn out to be bigger and more powerful than political winds.
Click to expand...

How did the cries about Bush turn out to be hollow? He kept us on the path to bankruptcy and created an atmosphere where someone worse would get elected.

We can't rewrite history to stop Bush from invading Iraq, how likely will it be that we can recover from the ridiculous spending that Obama wants?

Look, I just sold my work car that I paid 1300 bucks for two years ago last night for 600 dollars. If I were a politician I would go out tonight and buy a Lamborghini on credit to drive to work. That is ridiculous. I really couldn't afford to buy a new Camry right now.

In this analogy Bush might have bought a Lexus and Obama wants to buy a Bugatti Veyron. Both are stupid but one is so out of touch with reality that you have to realize how stupid you are.
 
JayRose said:
Your lack of perspective is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
Click to expand...
You apparently don't understand the implications of a national health care program that would replace all private insurance, which is what Obama wants. Liberty is not lost overnight; it happens piece by piece. If this healthcare bill passes, it's one more piece of our liberties that goes out the window.
 
Shooter said:
Your comparison is flawed in one important way. Bush wasn't trying to change the political system: Obama is. Bush didn't cut his teeth on "Rules for Radicals": Obama did. Obama is a marxist at heart, despite what he says. Don't read his lips, watch what he does.
Click to expand...

the irony, of course, is that bush *did* dramatically change the political system by vastly increasing the power of the executive branch in ways never imagined in the constitution. so far, to my great disappointment, the obama administration has decided not to reverse many of those dubious legal positions. (presidents tend not to give away the powers that their predecessors seize... that's why the presidency has gotten stronger and stronger and stronger over time, throwing our whole constitutional system pretty far out of balance in my view.)

so the verdict is this: bush, whose rabidly partisan lawyers propagated an entirely novel theory of "the unitary executive" to make up unchecked new powers like a de facto line-item veto ("signing statements") and claimed the right to simply ignore congressional oversight (wiretapping, subpoenas, etc), "was not trying to change the political system."

meanwhile, obama, who has so far in his presidency done nothing of the sort (although, as i said, he has disappointed in his failure to roll back bush-era abuses) is a "marxist at heart" because... well, we just know it? because we think he once read a book by saul alinksy?

madness
 
Shooter said:
You apparently don't understand the implications of a national health care program that would replace all private insurance, which is what Obama wants. Liberty is not lost overnight; it happens piece by piece. If this healthcare bill passes, it's one more piece of our liberties that goes out the window.
Click to expand...

so his cunning plan to create a plan to replace all private insurance is to (a) launch the health-care debate by taking single-payer completely off the table, and then (b) further weaken his own plan by refusing to offer vehement support the "public option," which is the only element of so-called "obamacare" that would even compete with private insurance, and then (c) offer support to support a plan (written by health insurance lobbyists!) coming out of max baucus' senate committee that would offer huge government subsidies to existing insurance companies, fine individual citizens who fail to buy insurance from those companies, and offer no real competition to those companies.

his plan to destroy the insurance industry must be cunning indeed! from where i'm sitting, "obamacare" looks a lot like a huge taxpayer-funded wet dream for the private health insurance industry...

naturally the wingers view it as "socialism"... our country is insane
 
Stepping Razor said:
the irony, of course, is that bush *did* dramatically change the political system by vastly increasing the power of the executive branch in ways never imagined in the constitution. so far, to my great disappointment, the obama administration has decided not to reverse many of those dubious legal positions. (presidents tend not to give away the powers that their predecessors seize... that's why the presidency has gotten stronger and stronger and stronger over time, throwing our whole constitutional system pretty far out of balance in my view.)

so the verdict is this: bush, whose rabidly partisan lawyers propagated an entirely novel theory of "the unitary executive" to make up unchecked new powers like a de facto line-item veto ("signing statements") and claimed the right to simply ignore congressional oversight (wiretapping, subpoenas, etc), "was not trying to change the political system."

meanwhile, obama, who has so far in his presidency done nothing of the sort (although, as i said, he has disappointed in his failure to roll back bush-era abuses) is a "marxist at heart" because... well, we just know it? because we think he once read a book by saul alinksy?

madness
Click to expand...

I think this speaks more to the nature of how lame congress has been. I mean it lacks any leadership that does anything other than trying to keep their party voting in line and the main objectives seem to be getting re-elected and keeping the other party from having much of a say. Reagan's budgets were declared DOA and written from scratch by congress. GHW Bush was forced to go back on his "no new taxes" pledge by congress. Clinton triangulated (his word) by adopting ideas of the opposing party that were good, and accepted congress' balanced budgets. Bush had and Obama will have rubber stamp congresses.

Look at 9/11. What happened after? Congress (both parties) were feeble and looked for the president to lead in every way. Same is true for the TARP bailout situation.

Meanwhile, I would say that appointing czars who don't face the constitutional Advice and Consent rules is something of the sort.
 
Denny Crane said:
I think this speaks more to the nature of how lame congress has been. I mean it lacks any leadership that does anything other than trying to keep their party voting in line and the main objectives seem to be getting re-elected and keeping the other party from having much of a say. Reagan's budgets were declared DOA and written from scratch by congress. GHW Bush was forced to go back on his "no new taxes" pledge by congress. Clinton triangulated (his word) by adopting ideas of the opposing party that were good, and accepted congress' balanced budgets. Bush had and Obama will have rubber stamp congresses.

Look at 9/11. What happened after? Congress (both parties) were feeble and looked for the president to lead in every way. Same is true for the TARP bailout situation.

Meanwhile, I would say that appointing czars who don't face the constitutional Advice and Consent rules is something of the sort.
Click to expand...

what's new about "czars"? presidents have been using them for ages (since at least andrew jackson, by my count, although he didn't use the term "czar.") the name is stupid/scary, but if obama's use of various policy advisers ("czars") is so terrifying, then why wasn't it equally terrifying nine months ago when g.w. bush was doing it or ten years ago when clinton was doing it or 25 years ago when reagan was doing it?

as with all these tea party anti-obama protests, the protesters who are so vehemently declaring that the current president is a tyrant are protesting things that they accepted as A-OK nine months ago when "their guy" was president... the hypocrisy and ignorance is stunning to me.

even fox news (!) has blown this bogus "controversy" out of the water:
[video=youtube;jiFoLlSWI2I]
 
Shooter said:
You apparently don't understand the implications of a national health care program that would replace all private insurance, which is what Obama wants. .
Click to expand...

You should really know the facts before spouting off like that.

And do you even know what a Marxist is? It sure sounds like you actually don't.
 
MrJayremmie said:
Your arguement is flawed. Obama isn't just a socialist, trying to push our country in that direction, but a Marxist, Fascist, Communist, Muslim, Kenyan who shouldn't even have been allowed to be president. He has an agenda of evil cloaked in Liberalism.

AND HE IS BLACK!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yet, you all were told this and knew about this 11 months ago and you STILL had it in you to vote for him.

How in thee hell does this happen?
 
Yet, you all were told this and knew about this 11 months ago and you STILL had it in you to vote for him.

How in thee hell does this happen?
Click to expand...

He's an affirmative action president!
 
SlyPokerDog said:
History of Czars in the US government - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

Number appointed by GW Bush - 46

Number appointed by Obama - 35

Number appointed by Clinton - 11

Interesting Czars appointed by GW Bush -

Abstinence czar
bird flu czar
birth control czar
faith-based czar/faith czar
Click to expand...

I believe the czar system needs reform. I propose the following. Henceforth, they will be known as fairies instead of czars.

For example, the birth control fairy, the drug fairy, the abstinence fairy.

barfo
 
Stepping Razor said:
meanwhile, obama, who has so far in his presidency done nothing of the sort (although, as i said, he has disappointed in his failure to roll back bush-era abuses) is a "marxist at heart" because... well, we just know it? because we think he once read a book by saul alinksy?

madness
Click to expand...

Obama basically took over GM, fired the CEO, and put his own guy in as the CEO. How is that not expanding the power of the executive branch? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
PapaG said:
Obama basically took over GM, fired the CEO, and put his own guy in as the CEO. How is that not expanding the power of the executive branch? :dunno:
Click to expand...

i totally agree that it's an inappropriate use of executive power. but again, it's a continuation of bush administration policy, not something that obama invented out of thin air. who was president when TARP funds were diverted into chrysler and GM, again? hint: it happened in december 2008.

(and again, despite voting for obama, i'm not saying that "bush started it" gets him off the hook: i'm personally deeply disappointed in him for not rolling back that program... same with indefinite detentions, illegal wiretapping, signing statements, etc.) but, for the record, none of that stuff originated with obama. neither did huge debts and deficits, troubled wars in iraq and afghanistan, a broken economy, etc.

so why is it a clear and present danger to the republic when obama does it now, when none of the tea partiers gave a rat's ass when bush started the program last year? it's the staggering inconsistency of these protests that makes these people seem like simple sore losers of an election rather than principled defenders of, well, principle.
 
Stepping Razor said:
i totally agree that it's an inappropriate use of executive power. but again, it's a continuation of bush administration policy, not something that obama invented out of thin air. who was president when TARP funds were diverted into chrysler and GM, again? hint: it happened in december 2008.

(and again, despite voting for obama, i'm not saying that "bush started it" gets him off the hook: i'm personally deeply disappointed in him for not rolling back that program... same with indefinite detentions, illegal wiretapping, signing statements, etc.) but, for the record, none of that stuff originated with obama. neither did huge debts and deficits, troubled wars in iraq and afghanistan, a broken economy, etc.

so why is it a clear and present danger to the republic when obama does it now, when none of the tea partiers gave a rat's ass when bush started the program last year? it's the staggering inconsistency of these protests that makes these people seem like simple sore losers of an election rather than principled defenders of, well, principle.
Click to expand...

I don't ever recall Bush firing the CEO of a private-sector company and then selling off its assets to a European company and the UAW. How is that a continuation of Bush's policy? Also, the TARP funds were approved by Congress; the GM firing was solely an executive branch decision.
 
PapaG said:
Obama basically took over GM, fired the CEO, and put his own guy in as the CEO. How is that not expanding the power of the executive branch? :dunno:
Click to expand...

The auto companies came to him and asked for money. Obama, or more appropriately Congress, did not jump down GM's throat and threaten them if they didn't take money. Is GM really about the CEO or is it about the company and jobs? If you're going to invest billions of dollars in a company (and I know, I know..you wouldn't have in the first place. You'd let them fail...) would you keep the captain of the Exxon Valdez or would you replace him with someone at least partially competent? And realistically, according to what we know about the bailout money, what could Obama/Congress have done if Wagoner refused to step down? What must Wagoner have thought/felt that compelled him to step down?


"Obama and his aides may have honed in on Wagoner for two reasons. First, his company is asking for the most in total federal aid: $26 billion, a figure administration officials fear could grow even larger. Second, the GM chief was tied more directly to the ill-fated decisions that that brought much of the American auto industry to the brink of collapse. Wagoner joined GM in 1977, has had a senior role in GM management since 1992, and became CEO of the company in 2000. He is considered responsible for increasing GM's focus on trucks and SUVs—at the expense of the hybrids and fuel efficient cars that have become more popular in the last couple of years."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html
 
PapaG said:
I don't ever recall Bush firing the CEO of a private-sector company and then selling off its assets to a European company and the UAW. How is that a continuation of Bush's policy? Also, the TARP funds were approved by Congress; the GM firing was solely an executive branch decision.
Click to expand...

If GM didn't like the offer they didn't have to take the money.
 
yakbladder said:
The auto companies came to him and asked for money. Obama, or more appropriately Congress, did not jump down GM's throat and threaten them if they didn't take money. Is GM really about the CEO or is it about the company and jobs? If you're going to invest billions of dollars in a company (and I know, I know..you wouldn't have in the first place. You'd let them fail...) would you keep the captain of the Exxon Valdez or would you replace him with someone at least partially competent? And realistically, according to what we know about the bailout money, what could Obama/Congress have done if Wagoner refused to step down? What must Wagoner have thought/felt that compelled him to step down?


"Obama and his aides may have honed in on Wagoner for two reasons. First, his company is asking for the most in total federal aid: $26 billion, a figure administration officials fear could grow even larger. Second, the GM chief was tied more directly to the ill-fated decisions that that brought much of the American auto industry to the brink of collapse. Wagoner joined GM in 1977, has had a senior role in GM management since 1992, and became CEO of the company in 2000. He is considered responsible for increasing GM's focus on trucks and SUVs—at the expense of the hybrids and fuel efficient cars that have become more popular in the last couple of years."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html
Click to expand...

Fantastic. It appears you agree that Obama expanded the powers of the executive branch. The rest is irrelevant in this discussion.
 
PapaG said:
Fantastic. It appears you agree that Obama expanded the powers of the executive branch. The rest is irrelevant in this discussion.
Click to expand...

We've had this discussion before, but Obama didn't fire Wagoner. Wagoner resigned at the request of the government.

But, the point is, he didn't have to. He could have said, I'm keeping my job and you can keep your goddamn handout.

Obama didn't and doesn't have the power to fire him. He does, however, have the power to withhold government funding. As has every other president.

barfo
 
PapaG said:
Fantastic. It appears you agree that Obama expanded the powers of the executive branch. The rest is irrelevant in this discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't think the rest is irrelevant, though. And I do agree with your premise that Obama expanded the powers of the executive branch by asking the CEO to step down. I don't recall that happening before, though it very well may have. Beyond that, I don't really see anything new.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top