Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• derek bomar

  

  queencitybuckeye;831599 wrote:It is, and I'll admit to having been one of the partisans until recently. Truth is, arguing about which party has been the less fiscally responsible is like arguing over which breed of dog has the most fragrant turd.

  
  yep. they both suck. I just wish people would admit this and talk about actual issues within a debate instead of spitting out talking points and playing politics with everything. This deal could get done with relatively small amounts of pain for everyone, but instead these fuckers are spinning this out of control. the McConnel plan is such a fucking joke. The Republicans just want to blame Obama. That's it. If Obama said (and he basically has) "i'll do whatever you want", they'd still say no. it is absolutely retarded.
• believer

  

  derek bomar;831617 wrote:The alternative would have been worse. And I really hope someone of substance runs against him (not Bachturd or Moosehunter).
  
  And I don't have a superiority complex, I just know when something is wrong and can admit it, unlike people who pledge allegiance to one party and then go along with everything that party says/does, even if they actually know better.

  Bachturd and Mossehunter? Very astute and creative. You obviously know what you're talking about.
  
  I don't "pledge allegiance" to any one party. Unfortunately the Repubs come a lot closer to my political leanings than the Dems. In my world the Dems have been hijacked by their far left and the Repubs are milquetoast idiots who campaign as conservatives but behave like the Democrats of old.
  
  If a charismatic, ideologically sound conservative third party candidate is on the ballot, I've been known to waste my votes on them. Quite frankly I'm more apt to vote for the Republican candidate simply because I prefer to cut my losses than take my chances on allowing a liberal Dem to hold the office.
  
  It's just the way it is.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;831605 wrote:What's even more laughable is the "superiority complex" exhibited by the fence riders who, believing themselves above the partisan bickering (hence the idea of - oh I dunno - political parties), are blindly and conveniently blown about by the shifting political winds.

  
  
  No, we usually stay in the middle and pick the candidate that best reflects us or our policies. If that is just left or just right then so be it.
  

  Like it or not partisanship has kept this great nation from swinging too far to the left or to the right. Get over it.

  Oh, I disagree on that one. The lack of civility the last 15 years has really hurt us. The political game and its either right or wrong, no rule for compromise has set us up in the situation today. If our leaders would have stay civil and kept the political game down, like the older days, things would not be this bad.
  

  For the record, while I'm a registered Republican, I stopped financial contributions to the party when the idiots spent like Dems the last time they controlled Congress.
  
  And before all you fence riders call yourselves "enlightened independents" you're the morons who put Obama in the WH. Just sayin'......

  Is Obama the best President, hell no. Would he better than McCain right now, I'm pretty sure.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;831624 wrote:Is Obama the best President, hell no. Would he better than McCain right now, I'm pretty sure.

  Why? Granted McCain is a liberal Republican but I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be arguing about the idiocy of McCainKare and $875 Billion of worthless Porkulus spending right now.
  
  By the way partisanship has been around since this country's inception. The last 15 years are no different.
• derek bomar

  

  believer;831630 wrote:Why? Granted McCain is a liberal Republican but I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be arguing about the idiocy of McCainKare and $875 Billion of worthless Porkulus spending right now.
  
  By the way partisanship has been around since this country's inception. The last 15 years are no different.

  
  you honestly dont think the level of partisanship has increased?
• believer

  

  derek bomar;831645 wrote:you honestly dont think the level of partisanship has increased?

  I never said that. I simply stated that partisanship in American politics has been around for at least a couple of centuries.
  
  Has partisanship ratcheted up the past 15 years? No question.
  
  Frankly I believe it has been necessary. Liberalism has been controlling the political agenda since FDR's New Deal. The growth of the conservative movement and its offshoots (the Tea Party for example) has rocked a few boats and challenged the status quo.
  
  Rightfully so.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  If you're defending Obama in this battle -- you're not being above partisanship. You're just being foolish.
  
  What Obama has proposed is NOT what is needed right now. As noted, it's not even REAL spending cuts; and he still wants to raise taxes at a time when our economy can least afford it.
  
  Whether you lean right or left, neither of those is acceptable right now.
  
  We need ACTUAL cuts in spending, not a bunch of smoke and mirrors shit, accompanied by the usual rhetoric.
  
  Oh and you don't have to be partisan to realize just how awful Obama has been as President so far...and judging from what he's been saying, it doesn't look like he's going to get any better in the near future.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;831648 wrote:We need ACTUAL cuts in spending, not a bunch of smoke and mirrors shit, accompanied by the usual rhetoric.

  Unfortunately when all is said and done by the end of this month that is all we'll get from the clowns on both sides of the aisle.
  
  I do believe there are level-headed Dems and Repubs in DC who honestly want true change, but DC "leadership" has become so entrenched in politics as usual they'd rather follow each other off the cliff like a bunch of moronic sheep than muster the courage to make lasting fiscal change.
• I Wear Pants

  Writerbuckeye;831648 wrote:If you're defending Obama in this battle -- you're not being above partisanship. You're just being foolish.
  
  What Obama has proposed is NOT what is needed right now. As noted, it's not even REAL spending cuts; and he still wants to raise taxes at a time when our economy can least afford it.
  
  Whether you lean right or left, neither of those is acceptable right now.
  
  We need ACTUAL cuts in spending, not a bunch of smoke and mirrors shit, accompanied by the usual rhetoric.
  
  Oh and you don't have to be partisan to realize just how awful Obama has been as President so far...and judging from what he's been saying, it doesn't look like he's going to get any better in the near future.

  I'd argue that we can't and couldn't afford the tax cuts that conservatives want and have wanted recently as well. But that never gets brought up.
• queencitybuckeye

  Writerbuckeye;831648 wrote: We need ACTUAL cuts in spending, not a bunch of smoke and mirrors shit, accompanied by the usual rhetoric.
  

  
  You mean like raising someone's taxes, and calling it a "spending cut"? Unlike some of my friends on the right, I am not opposed to some modest tax increases AFTER real spending cuts have been accomplished. But if you're going to raise taxes, fucking own it and call it what it is, a tax increase.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;831605 wrote:What's even more laughable is the "superiority complex" exhibited by the fence riders who, believing themselves above the partisan bickering (hence the idea of - oh I dunno - political parties), are blindly and conveniently blown about by the shifting political winds.
  
  Like it or not partisanship has kept this great nation from swinging too far to the left or to the right. Get over it.
  
  For the record, while I'm a registered Republican, I stopped financial contributions to the party when the idiots spent like Dems the last time they controlled Congress.
  
  And before all you fence riders call yourselves "enlightened independents" you're the morons who put Obama in the WH. Just sayin'......

  
  
  I agree on true cuts, especially in the entitlements. You baby boomers need to get over it.
  
  That said, as Joe Scarbough has said all week, deep cuts realistically need to be matched by the increases in taxes by closing the loopholes. That is the only way you can get any agreement with the D's. It takes both sides to solve the crisis. No one side has the right answer. That is not how it works. It takes two to tango so to speak. Deep cuts, with small loopholes closed for now.
  Then, after August 2, we can move on measures to pass a balanced budget amendment.
  
  I'd also support any revenue that comes in goes directly to passing off interest and the debt and nothing else.
• gut

  My feelings are prove the validity of tax increases by cutting real spending first. I don't want to see taxes increased only for the cuts to never materialize, and then have to raise taxes again and still have a large gap that will require ANOTHER tax increases to, at a minimum, eventually start paying down debt if and when they get the budget under control. That's a formula for European-style taxation and welfare, which is pretty much a failure.
  
  Myself and others don't want to see tax increases putting the cart before the horse because we pretty much know that it's only a formula to make permanent larger spending increases that should be cut instead. I think part of the eventual solution is a VAT, but everyone should be afraid of the govt putting their hands into another pocket. What may start out as a well-intentioned plan to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt will end-up a piggybank for more entitlements.
• gut

  queencitybuckeye;831599 wrote:Truth is, arguing about which party has been the less fiscally responsible is like arguing over which breed of dog has the most fragrant turd.

  
  Agreed, but right now only one party is drawing a line in the sand over REAL spending cuts. Funny part is, I don't think the Repubs are going nearly far enough. The Dems are painting the Repubs as mall cops grabbing the poor old lady by the purse, and it detracts from the larger issue that she left without paying and has no money in her purse.
• gut

  derek bomar;831619 wrote: If Obama said (and he basically has) "i'll do whatever you want", they'd still say no. it is absolutely retarded.

  
  Give me a break. Obama is doing his best Wimpy impersonation "I'll glad you pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" which sums up the Dem position in a nutshell - a promise to pay later, which both parties have an established history of never paying, for something they want today.
• derek bomar

  

  gut;831700 wrote:Give me a break. Obama is doing his best Wimpy impersonation "I'll glad you pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" which sums up the Dem position in a nutshell - a promise to pay later, which both parties have an established history of never paying, for something they want today.

  
  He literally has offered $3/$1 and they won't take it. David Brooks gets it. Why don't you?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  derek bomar;831709 wrote:He literally has offered $3/$1 and they won't take it. David Brooks gets it. Why don't you?

  
  Because he's a liar. And because the "cuts" are too far down the road. Brooks is a shill for the NY Times. He's hardly a true conservative voice.
• believer

  

  derek bomar;831709 wrote:He literally has offered $3/$1 and they won't take it. David Brooks gets it. Why don't you?

  Give me the $3 worth of genuine spending cuts first. Then come back to me for the $1 tax increase and guarantee me that the $1 will go towards paying down the debt and the debt ONLY.
  
  The problem with the Bammer & the Dems is they want guaranteed tax increases NOW (which will likely go towards more spending) for the possibility of spending cuts later.
  
  Reverse that thinking and I think conservatives will be on board.
  

  Writerbuckeye;831714 wrote:Because he's a liar. And because the "cuts" are too far down the road. Brooks is a shill for the NY Slimes. He's hardly a true conservative voice.

  fixed
• derek bomar

  

  Writerbuckeye;831714 wrote:Because he's a liar. And because the "cuts" are too far down the road. Brooks is a shill for the NY Times. He's hardly a true conservative voice.

  
  convenient he's not a true conservative when you don't agree with him... that seems to be the case for anyone who isn't in lock-step with the lunatics who hi-jacked your party. (same argument can be used for D's too)
• fish82

  

  derek bomar;831738 wrote:convenient he's not a true conservative when you don't agree with him... that seems to be the case for anyone who isn't in lock-step with the lunatics who hi-jacked your party. (same argument can be used for D's too)

  Also convenient how every single time a "conservative" of any ilk speaks out against the current position, you people twist yourselves into little knots screaming "this guy gets it, why don't you?"
  

  derek bomar;831645 wrote:you honestly dont think the level of partisanship has increased?

  
  Sure it has...and it can be traced directly back to the democrat party meltdown after they lost the House in '94 for the first time in 40+ years.
• gut

  believer;831723 wrote: The problem with the Bammer & the Dems is they want guaranteed tax increases NOW (which will likely go towards more spending) for the possibility of spending cuts later.

  That's the big problem. There's clearly a growing mentality in Washington that while the deficit is out of control, running deficits is not a big deal. Unless you turn-off the spigot the deficit is never going away. The Dems are making this about taxes, and taxes aren't going to cover 20% of the deficit, much less pay down any of the debt, on their best day. They've got everyone running scared that taming the deficit is going to be bad for the economy - going on 3+ years of deficit largesse and the economy still sucks. At this point, that out-of-control deficit is doing more harm than good to the economy,
• believer

  

  gut;831803 wrote:They've got everyone running scared that taming the deficit is going to be bad for the economy - going on 3+ years of deficit largesse and the economy still sucks. At this point, that out-of-control deficit is doing more harm than good to the economy,

  Uh oh...you've just invited a 32 page dissertation from Boatshoes on why Big Government deficit spending is essential for promotion of a healthy prosperous economy.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  derek bomar;831738 wrote:convenient he's not a true conservative when you don't agree with him... that seems to be the case for anyone who isn't in lock-step with the lunatics who hi-jacked your party. (same argument can be used for D's too)

  
  On fiscal issues, he's a New York version of a conservative -- just not really conservative. Don't know his stands on social issues, but I'd be willing to be they're pretty close to mine.
  
  Oh and speaking of a party being hijacked -- when are the Democrats going to take theirs back from the socialist nutjobs who now control it?
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;831849 wrote:Oh and speaking of a party being hijacked -- when are the Democrats going to take theirs back from the socialist nutjobs who now control it?

  Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Rangel, Biden, Gore, and a host of other leftist loons will never allow it.
• gut

  believer;831862 wrote:Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Rangel, Biden, Gore, and a host of other leftist loons will never allow it.

  What, no love for Harry Reid?
  
  It amazes me that Pelosi continues to get re-elected. I can only imagine how bat-sh*t crazy her constituents must be, too.
• Con_Alma

  gut;831930 wrote:...
  
  It amazes me that Pelosi continues to get re-elected. I can only imagine how bat-sh*t crazy her constituents must be, too.

  Ever been to San Francisco?