Democrat James Carville tells it like it is

[1bad65]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO1lO1CVkTE

You gotta love it when the shoe is on the other foot! :D

[MasterKiller]

In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the national Democrats’ view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington and empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.--Bobby Jindal

and then....


“We have been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late to stop the oil from hitting our coast,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said during a Monday news conference at Port Fourchon with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

“BP is the responsible party, but we need the federal government to make sure they are held accountable and that they are indeed responsible. Our way of life depends on it,” Jindal said.

[David Jamieson]

a) politicians are fork tongued no matter their party, no matter their stripe

b) the ones that matter are the ones who hold power, everyone else is a bleating shlub.

[SanHeChuan]

1Bad what do you think Obama should be doing specifically?

[1bad65]

and then....

Jindal is upset because he wanted to build some barrier sandbars to stop, or slow, the oil getting to his state. The Federal Government told him he could not do that.

If States had the rights the Founders intended, La would be alot better off as Jindal had a plan while the Federal Government did not. And not only did they not have a plan, they told the guy with a plan he was forbidden to execute his plan.

Governor Jindal is not speaking with a forked tongue. The Federal Government **** sure should be held responsible for them telling La that La could not try and fix the mess themselves.

[1bad65]

1Bad what do you think Obama should be doing specifically?

Nothing.

See, I'm consistent. I think Bush owed the Katrina victims nothing. It's not the Federal Government's responsibility, it's the States. My point was that when Katrina hit, the press and the Democrats said it was all Bush's fault and he was skewered for not doing enough, not caring, being a racist, etc. But when disaster strikes the same area and a liberal Democrat is President the press is mum while he does NOTHING for the victims, and is instead golfing, playing basketball, attending fundraisers in California, etc.

Admit it, if Bush were President right now, he would be being burned in effigy. The press would never shut up about how his good ole oil buddies destroyed the Gulf Coast and all he did was shoot hoops and go to fundraisers while these poor victims suffered. But Obama gets a pass. Of course Obama also got alot of campaign cash from BP Oil....

[David Jamieson]

Nothing.

See, I'm consistent. I think Bush owed the Katrina victims nothing. It's not the Federal Government's responsibility, it's the States. My point was that when Katrina hit, the press and the Democrats said it was all Bush's fault and he was skewered for not doing enough, not caring, being a racist, etc. But when disaster strikes the same area and a liberal Democrat is President the press is mum while he does NOTHING for the victims, and is instead golfing, playing basketball, attending fundraisers in California, etc.

Admit it, if Bush were President right now, he would be being burned in effigy. The press would never shut up about how his good ole oil buddies destroyed the Gulf Coast and all he did was shoot hoops and go to fundraisers while these poor victims suffered. But Obama gets a pass. Of course Obama also got alot of campaign cash from BP Oil....

what victims so far?

Bush was lax in providing much needed aid to Louisiana and teh city of New Orleans was lax in providing ward 9 with a decent seawall.

did you know that up in canada a band called the tragically hip wrote a song called "new orleans is sinking" in the 80's.

Even then, everyone knew that the New orleans sea wall was a joke.

People do nothing but react, and THAT is the problem.

[SanHeChuan]

Admit it, if Bush were President right now, he would be being burned in effigy.

How many people have died?
How many people are homeless?
How many people need food and water?
Where is the looting?
Where is the lawless Chaos?

Other than geographical location, what do these two things really have in common?

Bush probably would be criticized more, and he might of been unfairly criticized during Katrina, but I doubt Bush would have been criticized as much for this disaster as he was for Katrina, because people are not dying.

[David Jamieson]

How many people have died?
How many people are homeless?
How many people need food and water?
Where is the looting?
Where is the lawless Chaos?

Other than geographical location, what do these two things really have in common?

Bush probably would be criticized more, and he might of been unfairly criticized during Katrina, but I doubt Bush would have been criticized as much or this disaster as he was for Katrina, because people are not dying.

You speak common sense. Don't expect it to be understood by the troll though. lol

"victims" :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

You speak common sense. Don't expect it to be understood by the troll though. lol

"victims" :rolleyes:

Dude, the Gulf Coast seafood industry is taking an enormous hit. I saw a guy who owns a boat in Florida who takes tourists and fishermen out into the Gulf saying his business is likely going to go under. Florida is spending over $25 million in advertising so they don't lose tourism money. And what about the taxpayers footing the bill now, aren't they victims? I notice that in the liberal's world, taxpayers can never be victims.

And I love how you liberals are now saying an oil spill that is now the biggest in US history has no victims. My, my, what hypocracy.

And Carville said "people are dyin". Sounds like he says there are victims.

[David Jamieson]

Dude, the Gulf Coast seafood industry is taking an enormous hit. I saw a guy who owns a boat in Florida who takes tourists and fishermen out into the Gulf saying his business is likely going to go under. Florida is spending over $25 million in advertising so they don't lose tourism money. And what about the taxpayers footing the bill now, aren't they victims? I notice that in the liberal's world, taxpayers can never be victims.

And I love how you liberals are now saying an oil spill that is now the biggest in US history has no victims. My, my, what hypocracy.

And Carville said "people are dyin". Sounds like he says there are victims.

uh, you live in the land of lawsuits and there is nothing stopping any shrimpers from suiing and winning against BP. Don't you think?

why are you against socialism, but then you support it when it's convenient to do so.

BP is 100% responsible for their mess. BP should 100% pay for it and Obama seems to be working towards changing the legislation that allows oil companies to duck out after paying 70 million.

nobody is dying. whether Carville says it or not.

BP is responsible for the mess and they will pay or pay back, one way or another.

also, where are you getting the information that the white house is stopping Louisiana from taking protective measures? Is that an EPA thing or a directive from the white house?

also, as you are a right winger, are you certain you are just making stuff up to fit your argument again? Because you do that a lot.

[SanHeChuan]

I love how conservatives equate or elevate people losing money above people losing their lives.

[1bad65]

why are you against socialism, but then you support it when it's convenient to do so.

Since you can't read and/or comprehend my posts, I'm forced once again to decipher written English for you. :rolleyes:

Here is what I posted: "See, I'm consistent. I think Bush owed the Katrina victims nothing. It's not the Federal Government's responsibility, it's the States."

Do you understand it now?


nobody is dying. whether Carville says it or not.

Actually 11 people have died so far, and many people cleaning up the oil are reporting serious health problems.


also, where are you getting the information that the white house is stopping Louisiana from taking protective measures? Is that an EPA thing or a directive from the white house?

Again, you fail reading comprehension. :rolleyes:

I used the words "Federal Government" not the words "White House". Please learn to read.

But here is a link. I'm sorry it's written in English, as you seem to have a hard time understanding it.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-asks/story?id=10731680


also, as you are a right winger, are you certain you are just making stuff up to fit your argument again? Because you do that a lot.

Show me where I've "made stuff up", and I'll leave here and never come back.

And keep in mind, if I've been mistaken and owned up to it, thats not "making stuff up".

Did I make up the Carville video? ;)

[1bad65]

I love how conservatives equate or elevate people losing money above people losing their lives.

Did I say that, or are you once again making stuff up and saying you found it in my posts? :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

really?

I highly doubt that you'll never come back here again.

I think your being here and spreading these neo-con bs lies and agitation is likely connected to some job you have, or you are suffering from chicken little syndrome and do this kind of thing in a lot of places as if you are doing a service to the community or something. lol

I still have yet to see you participate intelligently in a post about traditional chinese martial arts, kung fu, qi gong or any of the other subject matter that is the focus of this place.

so, i simply don't believe you when you say stupid things like that because you've been shown to be wrong before on many occasions and yet you are still here pushing a neo con information agenda and regurgitating rush limbaugh and fox news. lol

whatever dude. keep banging your drum I guess.

[1bad65]

really?

I highly doubt that you'll never come back here again.

So you can't find even one example.

Since you can't, kindly stop making baseless assertions then.


I think your being here and spreading these neo-con bs lies and agitation is likely connected to some job you have, or you are suffering from chicken little syndrome and do this kind of thing in a lot of places as if you are doing a service to the community or something. lol

Ok, you're right. You got me.

BTW, what's your reason for being here and matching me post-for-post?


I still have yet to see you participate intelligently in a post about traditional chinese martial arts, kung fu, qi gong or any of the other subject matter that is the focus of this place.

Unlike you, I don't consider myself an expert in things I've had no education/training/experience in. Since I have about zero knowledge of those things, I don't debate/discuss them.

I've participated in the MMA and boxing areas/threads.


so, i simply don't believe you when you say stupid things like that because you've been shown to be wrong before on many occasions and yet you are still here pushing a neo con information agenda and regurgitating rush limbaugh and fox news. lol

I can't really decipher that run-on sentence. Please rephrase it.


whatever dude. keep banging your drum I guess.

And you keep matching me post-for-post. ;)

[David Jamieson]

So you can't find even one example.

Since you can't, kindly stop making baseless assertions then.

not that I can't find them, just not going to bother looking. You know it's been pointed out to you before where you were outright wrong on the facts. But anyway...




Ok, you're right. You got me.

BTW, what's your reason for being here and matching me post-for-post?

I've told you before, this is the taint section and it's where I troll. Sometimes it's a soft trolling and other times it's hard trolling. really, beside goofy youtube vid shows, there's not a lot to do in an off topic forum beside trolling, but you knew that!




Unlike you, I don't consider myself an expert in things I've had no education/training/experience in. Since I have about zero knowledge of those things, I don't debate/discuss them. ha! YOu discuss plenty of stuff you demonstrably have no knowledge of.


I've participated in the MMA and boxing areas/threads. with taunts aimed at rudy abel? that doesn't count. lol




I can't really decipher that run-on sentence. Please rephrase it.

nay, tis english read again. It's quite clear in content.




And you keep matching me post-for-post. ;) yep export and import of SQL dbases is a dull task and requires almost no physical interaction in the during part of the import or export. :)

[MasterKiller]

http://dailypicdump.com/data/images/2010/05/31/a06b0c.jpg

[SanHeChuan]

Originally Posted by SanHeChuan
I love how conservatives equate or elevate people losing money above people losing their lives.


Did I say that, or are you once again making stuff up and saying you found it in my posts? :rolleyes:


My point was that when Katrina hit, the press and the Democrats said it was all Bush's fault and he was skewered for not doing enough, not caring, being a racist, etc. But when disaster strikes the same area and a liberal Democrat is President the press is mum while he does NOTHING for the victims, and is instead golfing, playing basketball, attending fundraisers in California, etc.

This post sounds to me like you think doing nothing while people are dying, is the same as doing nothing while people are losing money. If that is not what you think, then you wouldn’t expect Obama to get equal criticism as bush, would you.

[Reality_Check]

Actually 11 people have died so far, and many people cleaning up the oil are reporting serious health problems.

Just to be specific, those 11 people were killed by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, not as a result of the spill.

Which begs the question; how many people have been killed by the spill itself?

[1bad65]

not that I can't find them, just not going to bother looking. You know it's been pointed out to you before where you were outright wrong on the facts. But anyway...

So you made another accusation about me without having a shred of evidence to back you up. At least you admitted it.

Again, I openly admit I've been wrong on facts a time or two. And when shown sourced info that proves me wrong, I've gotten on here and admitted I was wrong. You said I make stuff up. Apples and oranges.


I've told you before, this is the taint section and it's where I troll. Sometimes it's a soft trolling and other times it's hard trolling. really, beside goofy youtube vid shows, there's not a lot to do in an off topic forum beside trolling, but you knew that!

Fair enough, again thanks for the honesty. I myself do enjoy spirited political discussions though.


ha! YOu discuss plenty of stuff you demonstrably have no knowledge of.

Like...?


With taunts aimed at rudy abel? that doesn't count. lol

I had a goal in mind when doing that, and I achieved my objective. ;)

[1bad65]

This post sounds to me like you think doing nothing while people are dying, is the same as doing nothing while people are losing money. If that is not what you think, then you wouldn’t expect Obama to get equal criticism as bush, would you.

How so, considering the paragraph you quoted never mentions dying or deaths?

Bush was criticized for his lack of caring, lack of Federal action, not spending enough money, not showing up enough, his racism :rolleyes:, flying over the area in Air Force 1, etc. Obama got a pass on the entire disaster. I just pointed out the hypocracy in that. Do you not agree there was/is a double standard?

[1bad65]

Just to be specific, those 11 people were killed by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, not as a result of the spill.

Which begs the question; how many people have been killed by the spill itself?

Ah, but now your liberal arguments can be used against you. :D

See, secondhand smoke and pollution kill people, right? You liberals have been saying for decades it does, it just takes a long time. Well, this oil is giving people health problems that may well have long-term health effects, maybe even death. And don't forget food poisoning. Almost 1/3 of the Gulf's fishing areas are now off-limits as of today due to the fear of tainted seafood (31%).

Remember, once Katrina was over, the dying was over. But it was still Bush's job to clean it up, buy people new homes, find them jobs, etc. :rolleyes:

So please explain why Bush was expected to fix everything Katrina related quickly, but Obama is getting a pass while the flow of oil hasn't even been stopped yet.

[Reality_Check]

Ah, but now your liberal arguments can be used against you. :D

See, secondhand smoke and pollution kill people, right? You liberals have been saying for decades it does, it just takes a long time. Well, this oil is giving people health problems that may well have long-term health effects, maybe even death. And don't forget food poisoning. Almost 1/3 of the Gulf's fishing areas are now off-limits as of today due to the fear of tainted seafood (31%).

Remember, once Katrina was over, the dying was over. But it was still Bush's job to clean it up, buy people new homes, find them jobs, etc. :rolleyes:

I have yet to see any reports of the oil spill itself affecting people's health adversely (though I could be wrong). I have seen reports alleging that the chemical dispersants being used are causing sickness. I'm not saying that the spill will not have an effect, though I suspect it will be more as a result of the damage to the ecosystem rather than a direct impact to the health of the residents on the Gulf Coast.

[Reality_Check]

Ah, but now your liberal arguments can be used against you. :D

See, secondhand smoke and pollution kill people, right? You liberals have been saying for decades it does, it just takes a long time.

So, do you believe that second hand smoke and pollution do not pose health risks?

[1bad65]

I have yet to see any reports of the oil spill itself affecting people's health adversely (though I could be wrong).

Not to be a ****, but you must not be reading the news lately. Both CNN and FoxNews had it as headlines on their webpages last week.


So, do you believe that second hand smoke and pollution do not pose health risks?

Pollution, yes. Secondhand smoke, no.

[KC Elbows]

Pollution, yes. Secondhand smoke, no.

I give up, the internet wins.

[David Jamieson]

I give up, the internet wins.

never give up! the internet can't win by virtue of ubiquitous ignorance.

[KC Elbows]

No, it has won.

[brothernumber9]

I think Obama is getting the heat put on him now and will only worsen as the short term and long term effects of the spill/leak take hold and become evident.
This thread began with a post of Carville, a former Dem advisor and current Louisiana resident, effectively berating Obama and the current administration for not taking action, or at least taking too late an action on the crisis. Though this post may be just another 1bad attack on Obama and anything not hard line repub, I think much of what he's stated in regard to the oil spill is fair, and arguably how much, if not most of the country, feels about it right now.

[dimethylsea]

never give up! the internet can't win by virtue of ubiquitous HILARITY

Fixed that for you!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/worst_case_scenario.png

[1bad65]

Though this post may be just another 1bad attack on Obama and anything not hard line repub, I think much of what he's stated in regard to the oil spill is fair, and arguably how much, if not most of the country, feels about it right now.

I'm not alone, you are correct. Just today, Spike Lee and Dick Morris chimed in as well.

Spike Lee article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/02/obama.oil.spill.tone/index.html?hpt=T2

Dick Morris article: (link will only work if you replace the **** with the letters 'dick')
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/****-morris/100913-obama-doesnt-have-a-clue

Morris had some real zingers:
"And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline."

"America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue."

"Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.

Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?"

[dimethylsea]

Anyone who characterizes Bush-41 as a failure due to "stubbornness" can be safely disregarded as a political hack.

Bush-41 failed as a President because he led, cajoled, lied, and subborned his country into a pointless war.


Remember 1Bad65.. Obama doesn't have to "succeed" to succeed. He just has to not mess up as badly as the poster-child for the Neo-Cons/GOP did (i.e. Bush-43).

And on that count he's WAY WAY AHEAD of the curve.

He will run in 2012, and be re-elected most likely. That's the reality. The American public repudiated the policies of the far Right in favor of someone who is a center-left politician.

That's the reality. People crossed the "party lines" to vote for him because they hated what the GOP had done do our country, our soldiers, our economy, and our social contract.

That's the reality. Stop whining and trying to drag down someone you disagree with just because you buy into the Rush/Beck/Hannity/Faux News talking points.

Obama is MISTER PRESIDENT. That's how it is. That's the reality.

You are basically whining that Obama wasn't wading in the oil from day one declaring victory. If he had you'd be whining he didn't achieve victory. If he basically came out and said "BP will be destroyed as a company for this" you'd rant about him being a socialist trying to destroy business.

Absolutely NOTHING Obama does would satisfy you, short of him betraying the platform that DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED HIM.

So basically either Obama is a hypocrite who does a 180 on everything and acts like the Republicans that the American people voted out..

OR You are going to hate on him all day long for everything.

The GOP lost. Obama won. That's the reality. Get some testicular fortitude and let the democratically elected WINNER of the election do his job. You will have your chance to vote for the party of corporate corruption in a few more years.

[Reality_Check]

Not to be a ****, but you must not be reading the news lately. Both CNN and FoxNews had it as headlines on their webpages last week.

Then please post a link as I have been unable to find anything blaming the reports of illness on the oil. The chemicals being used to disperse the oil yes, but not the oil itself.

[1bad65]

Then please post a link as I have been unable to find anything blaming the reports of illness on the oil. The chemicals being used to disperse the oil yes, but not the oil itself.

Here:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/03/gulf.fishermans.wife/index.html?hpt=C1

And stop playing semantics. Whether its the oil or the clean up chemicals, the point is they are getting sick. I thought you liberals cared about people getting sick, not arguing semantics over how they got sick.

[1bad65]

Anyone who characterizes Bush-41 as a failure due to "stubbornness" can be safely disregarded as a political hack.

Bush-41 failed as a President because he led, cajoled, lied, and subborned his country into a pointless war.

Do what?!?! Are you saying Iraq didn't invade Kuwait? Because that's why Bush-41 said we fought the Iraq War, to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait.


Remember 1Bad65.. Obama doesn't have to "succeed" to succeed.

LMFAO at this!!!! Way to lower the bar. :rolleyes: I guess GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, etc all 'succeeded' too.


He just has to not mess up as badly as the poster-child for the Neo-Cons/GOP did (i.e. Bush-43).

And on that count he's WAY WAY AHEAD of the curve.

How so? He has added to the debt at a faster pace than any previous President. Unemployment is up over 35% since Bush left office. And now we find out his healthcare program is going to cost double what he said it would.

You're really embarrassing yourself and showing what a partisan hack you are. I've openly said GW Bush was nowhere near perfect, but here you type 'he doesnt have to succeed to succeed' in relation to your guy. And you guys say I'm the one who is blindly devoted to one side of the political spectrum.


He will run in 2012, and be re-elected most likely. That's the reality. The American public repudiated the policies of the far Right in favor of someone who is a center-left politician.

You do realize he now has a ~42% approval rating, right? Sounds like a shoe-in to me. :rolleyes:

After November, you be sure and come on here and tell us how the American public repudiated the policies of the far right. :D

And if you say Obama is a "center-left" politician, can you give us an example of who you say is a "far left" politician?


That's the reality. People crossed the "party lines" to vote for him because they hated what the GOP had done do our country, our soldiers, our economy, and our social contract.

You are right that independant voters voted for him in droves. But have you seen how those voters are now leaving him at a rapid pace?


That's the reality. Stop whining and trying to drag down someone you disagree with just because you buy into the Rush/Beck/Hannity/Faux News talking points.

But 'he doesn't have to succeed to succeed' is not a leftist talking point. :rolleyes:


You are basically whining that Obama wasn't wading in the oil from day one declaring victory. If he had you'd be whining he didn't achieve victory. If he basically came out and said "BP will be destroyed as a company for this" you'd rant about him being a socialist trying to destroy business.

Can you F'N read???? I've actually said I'm pointing out hypocracy, and that honestly it's not the Federal Government's problem. Please, please, stop putting words in my mouth. You are either putting words in my mouth, or you are too ignorant to be able to read and comprehend my posts. Which is it?


The GOP lost. Obama won. That's the reality. Get some testicular fortitude and let the democratically elected WINNER of the election do his job. You will have your chance to vote for the party of corporate corruption in a few more years.

Again, proving you are a hack. If the GOP is the party of corporate corruption, please explain how BP Oil gave Obama more money than any other candidate...

[Drake]

Why are we blaming Obama for something that, by federal law, is solely BP's responsibility?

At any rate, word from my comrades is that they are on call right now.

[Drake]

And let's put this into the context of a previous oil spill under Fmr Pres HW Bush. Katrina wasn't the same thing, so the results were different.

Washington (CNN) -- Nearly seven weeks into the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, the Obama administration is facing increasing calls to take over the cleanup operation from beleaguered oil giant BP.

While the government has the legal means of doing that, the consequences might ultimately hurt the government.

On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department has launched a criminal and civil investigation into devastating spill and BP's actions. He said the investigation, which began weeks ago, would be comprehensive and aggressive. He also said federal officials will prosecute anyone who broke the law.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said an intervention into the cleanup would only hurt the government's litigation against BP.

"Undoubtedly, one of the defenses of the BP people here, both the corporation and the individuals involved, is going to be, 'Hey, the federal government was involved with this every step of the way. You knew what we were doing. You approved it. You approved all our actions. How can you turn around and prosecute us?' "

Toobin added that while BP's potential argument might be politically infuriating, it is actually a good legal argument in court, "which would make a case like this pretty difficult to prove."

President George H.W. Bush, during the Exxon Valdez tanker spill off the coast of Alaska in 1989, turned down a request by Alaska's governor to declare the incident a major disaster. That declaration, under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, would commit federal resources and control over the cleanup efforts.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the rationale for the turndowns was that a declaration by Bush "would hinder the government's litigation against Exxon that promised substantial compensation for the incident."



Make sense now?

[brothernumber9]

I think many Americans thought alike when hearing Obama talk about bringing the troops home, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, ending war, and focusing a little more on domestic issues, particularly the credit crisis at the time, that "yeah he's our guy". At least a little bit more popular than McCain.

Within the first 3 months, Obama came out fairly strong, taking point and acting on some needed legislation, even if not entirely satisfactory, was at least taking progressive action in the public eye.
Granted, I feel Obama stepped into the worst set of crisis possibly of all time, or at least since probably Kennedy, and seem to just continually compound, but his actions since the stimulus package have begun leaning toward failure. The bank bailouts, abuse of executive priveledges regarding military action, no clear exit strategy from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, ominous health care reform, and now the Oil spill in the gulf to which, even if he doesn't necessarily have any real power to act on it, didn't give any confidence to the public, particularly Louisiana and Florida, that everything possible was being done.

I certainly don't envy his job and the tasks set out before him, but if he doesn't step up his game by the end of 2nd Qtr 2011, I don't believe he will win re-election.

[dimethylsea]

You're really embarrassing yourself and showing what a partisan hack you are. I've openly said GW Bush was nowhere near perfect, but here you type 'he doesnt have to succeed to succeed' in relation to your guy. And you guys say I'm the one who is blindly devoted to one side of the political spectrum.


You keep forgetting man.. it's not that Obama is great.. it's that the GOP lied and lead us into war and because of it I loathe them and all their works.

I'd vote for a card-carrying member of the communist party with three wives and a criminal record for statutory rape and a history of addiction before I'd vote for a Republican.

Bush-43 was *just that bad*. The GOP has earned the hate. They had their little warmonger party and now they gotta pay. Every election.. till I stop voting most likely.


Obama ain't Bush-43. He hasn't STARTED any wars and he's trying to fix the mess left by the last guy. He's doing just fine.

No starting of wars, guy works hard, trys to fix all the GOP's f*ckups... that's a success to me.

See how low that bar is? All you gotta do is get elected, not start any d*mn wars, and be a hard worker and you are better than the Wolf Boy and Daddy Warbucks.

Weird how Cheney hasn't been all over the news cycle since Deepwater exploded. Guess he might not want to answer questions about his multimillion dollar "goodbye present" from Halliburton eh?

I'll be honest.. I can't wait for Bush to die (of natural causes). I need to **** on his grave.

[1bad65]

I certainly don't envy his job and the tasks set out before him, but if he doesn't step up his game by the end of 2nd Qtr 2011, I don't believe he will win re-election.

No way. Remember, he doesn't have to succeed to succeed. ;)

[1bad65]

Dime, you really didn't address my post. You also didn't answer any of the questions I asked you. Please just answer this one:

And if you say Obama is a "center-left" politician, can you give us an example of who you say is a "far left" politician?

[1bad65]

See how low that bar is? All you gotta do is get elected, not start any d*mn wars, and be a hard worker and you are better than the Wolf Boy and Daddy Warbucks.

The bar may be low for this fool, but yet you still have to lower it for him to 'succeed'.

So in your book the national debt doesn't matter? What about the corruption with the Sestak and Romanoff job offers if they dropped out of races against Obama's chosen candidates? What about unempolyment? What about Obama lying when he said he would close Gitmo? Do any of those issues matter to you?

[Xiao3 Meng4]

lol at the wall of burning alligators!

Almost the same size of disaster happened before in 1979. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill

[dimethylsea]

Dime, you really didn't address my post. You also didn't answer any of the questions I asked you. Please just answer this one:

And if you say Obama is a "center-left" politician, can you give us an example of who you say is a "far left" politician?

Bernie Sanders is far left. That's the first name that comes to mind.

[dimethylsea]

The bar may be low for this fool, but yet you still have to lower it for him to 'succeed'.

So in your book the national debt doesn't matter? What about the corruption with the Sestak and Romanoff job offers if they dropped out of races against Obama's chosen candidates? What about unempolyment? What about Obama lying when he said he would close Gitmo? Do any of those issues matter to you?

The national debt is going to explode under the GOP or the Demos.. because the GOP is the party of warfare and corporate corruption and the Demos are the party of social intervention and welfare.

Sestak and Romanoff is not corruption. It's just the way politics is done.

Do you SERIOUSLY expect me to give a flying f*cking f*ck about petty sh*t like that after 9 years of war?

Dude.. understand something.. Obama could literally be caught in bed with a midget and a tube of cake frosting screaming the name of Allah and it would NOT MATTER.

That's is how bad the GOP has messed up. I am a libertarian. I know ALL ABOUT the lesser of the two evils.

And now the Democratic party is exactly that. Profoundly flawed.. but possessed of one singular and omnipotent virtue.

They aren't Republicans.

[1bad65]

Bernie Sanders is far left. That's the first name that comes to mind.

Sanders is a Socialist, not a Democrat.

I should have been more specific; can you name a Democrat further left than Obama. And one besides Kucinich please. ;) He is a Socialist, he just hasn't switched Parties yet from Democrat to Socialist.

[1bad65]

Sestak and Romanoff is not corruption. It's just the way politics is done.

It is corruption. Period. There are Federal Laws that ban this type of behavior.

And Obama actually promised open Government. So he lied, again. Does he now get a pass because he isn't forced by Federal laws to have an open Government? What happened to a man's word being enough?


Do you SERIOUSLY expect me to give a flying f*cking f*ck about petty sh*t like that after 9 years of war?

So you give ANOTHER pass to the Democrats. :rolleyes:


Dude.. understand something.. Obama could literally be caught in bed with a midget and a tube of cake frosting screaming the name of Allah and it would NOT MATTER.

Correct. But I didn't mention that. I mentioned his outright lying to get elected. And you failed to address that.


That's is how bad the GOP has messed up. I am a libertarian. I know ALL ABOUT the lesser of the two evils.

So a Libertarian says the Party of Big Government is the lesser of two evils?? Give me a break. You're either lying about being a Libertarian, or you are ignorant of what the political Parties stand for.

Considering you are a Libertarian, I guess you voted for Ron Paul in 2008, right?


And now the Democratic party is exactly that. Profoundly flawed.. but possessed of one singular and omnipotent virtue.

They aren't Republicans.

Complete foolishness.

If you cant name ONE thing they stand for that you agree with them on, yet you continue to vote for them, that says alot about you.

I prefer the Republicans (out of the Big 2 Parties) but they are not the best one out there when you add in the smaller Parties out there. But I could darn sure come up with at least ONE plank on their platform that I agree with.

[dimethylsea]

It is corruption. Period. There are Federal Laws that ban this type of behavior.

It is NOT illegal. Offering someone a position BEFORE the election is NOT illegal.





So a Libertarian says the Party of Big Government is the lesser of two evils?? Give me a break. You're either lying about being a Libertarian, or you are ignorant of what the political Parties stand for.



Yes. The Democrats are the lesser evil. Understand this very clearly... the GOP is the party of war. It's really that simple.

The fundamental proposition of libertarian political philosophy is the NON-INITIATION OF FORCE.

Faced with the choice between a party that initiates force and kills innocents who have NO FRANCHISE in American elections, versus one that initiates economic and legal force against America's own citizens who DO have the franchise and the theoretical option to vote out the bastiches.. I choose the ones who are the lesser of the evils.

Libertarians reason from basic principles. Our foreign policy (war war war) is more often important than our domestic policy.

Why? Because the use of force against the innocent and uninvolved is much higher under a GOP regime.

Don't you f*cking dare tell me I should vote for murderers and facists because they LIE and say they are closer to the Libertarian point of view.

I choose the leftists because at least they aren't QUITE as likely to kill 50000 Iraqis.

A libertarian who picks 50000 dead people (who didn't vote) over 275 million people (who can vote) getting more government interference ...

Seriously dude.. how f*cking DARE you call me a hypocrite on this?

Why don't you start collecting Iraqi skulls and call them "Freedom Mugs"?

But hey.. it's ok to deficit spend out the yinyang for nukes and wars and crap if they promise you a tax cut and only violate the civil rights of the "hippies".

Thanks.. I'll take the Democrats. At least they aren't all constantly genuflecting to a god that never was.

If the Libertarian/Rothbardian/Mises POV is correct then the fiat currency WILL implode and Americans will get a very nasty lesson in economics. I am prepared for this to happen, but I will NOT NOT NOT NOT be a "fellow traveler" with those disgusting republicans.

I will turn in my citizenship in the US and starve on a beach in South America before I vote for those facists.

[1bad65]

It is NOT illegal. Offering someone a position BEFORE the election is NOT illegal.

You are wrong. It's a crime.

Read Federal Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 600 and 18 U.S.C. § 595.

Here is a link as well:
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/132575


Yes. The Democrats are the lesser evil. Understand this very clearly... the GOP is the party of war. It's really that simple.

Was LBJ a Republican?

And Obama said he would close Gitmo. He didn't. And despite his campaign promises, he is not leaving Iraq. Blaming solely the GOP is something only a partisan hack would do.


The fundamental proposition of libertarian political philosophy is the NON-INITIATION OF FORCE.

Can you show us a link to the Libertarian Party that says this?


Faced with the choice between a party that initiates force and kills innocents who have NO FRANCHISE in American elections, versus one that initiates economic and legal force against America's own citizens who DO have the franchise and the theoretical option to vote out the bastiches.. I choose the ones who are the lesser of the evils.

But voting for a Party that is going to bankrupt the country is ok?



Libertarians reason from basic principles. Our foreign policy (war war war) is more often important than our domestic policy.

Not when Obama's own guy (Bernanke) says the debt is unsustainable over the long term.


Why? Because the use of force against the innocent and uninvolved is much higher under a GOP regime.

Not during the Vietnam War.


Don't you f*cking dare tell me I should vote for murderers and facists because they LIE and say they are closer to the Libertarian point of view.

I did dare say it. And I'll say it again because it's true. No matter how you hate my words, they are true.

Do you even know what fascism is? If you did, you could not say the GOP are the fascists and still give the Democrats a pass when they are the ones nationalizing industries as quickly as they can. What does fascism say about nationalizing industries?


I choose the leftists because at least they aren't QUITE as likely to kill 50000 Iraqis.

I guess Vietnamese and Cambodians don't count.


Seriously dude.. how f*cking DARE you call me a hypocrite on this?

You're more of a useful idiot. My bad.

You're in effect cutting off your nose to spite your face. A true Libertarian could not vote for a Party that advocates big government, high taxes, Government run health care, nationalizing of businesses, bailouts, etc.


Why don't you start collecting Iraqi skulls and call them "Freedom Mugs"?

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.


But hey.. it's ok to deficit spend out the yinyang for nukes and wars and crap if they promise you a tax cut and only violate the civil rights of the "hippies".

WTF are you talking about?!?! Hippies?!?!


Thanks.. I'll take the Democrats. At least they aren't all constantly genuflecting to a god that never was.

They worship Government. Is that any better?


If the Libertarian/Rothbardian/Mises POV is correct then the fiat currency WILL implode and Americans will get a very nasty lesson in economics. I am prepared for this to happen, but I will NOT NOT NOT NOT be a "fellow traveler" with those disgusting republicans.

You'll look real good once you cut your entire nose off. :rolleyes:


I will turn in my citizenship in the US and starve on a beach in South America before I vote for those facists.

Just leave now and save us the economic implosion part please.


I can't believe I'm arguing with a guy who WANTS our economy to implode. I want whats best for the country. You admittedly do not. That says alot.

[Drake]

We are withdrawing from Iraq right now...

[dimethylsea]

We are withdrawing from Iraq right now...

We shouldn't have gone there to begin with. I firmly believe this and will cast my ballot to that effect (voting against the party primarily responsible for the horror) for decades.

[Drake]

We shouldn't have gone there to begin with. I firmly believe this and will cast my ballot to that effect (voting against the party primarily responsible for the horror) for decades.

I agree. The invasion was premature, and we really needed the force in Afghanistan instead. We'd be done by now had we done the right thing. Instead, we have another year in Afghanistan, with several more spent as "advise and assist" unit deployments.

[dimethylsea]

Was LBJ a Republican?

I'm not concerned with what happened in Nam. I'm concerned with what has happened in my own adult lifetime. Otherwise I'd be voting Republican cause it's the party of Abraham Lincoln.




And Obama said he would close Gitmo. He didn't. And despite his campaign promises, he is not leaving Iraq. Blaming solely the GOP is something only a partisan hack would do.

Blaming the GOP, when the GOP has fought tooth and nail to keep Gitmo, to keep us in Iraq, is the only rational response.



Can you show us a link to the Libertarian Party that says this?

Link to a party? Read von Mises or Rothbard. I'm not doing your homework for you. Non-intiation of force is the fundamental principle of libertarian thought. If you don't buy this then we really aren't on the same page talking about Libertarian though. So discussion over on that point.




But voting for a Party that is going to bankrupt the country is ok?


It's not "OK" but it's less distasteful than voting for a Party with the blood of thousands on their hands during a time when I was an adult member of the electorate. My responsibility is to vote for a government that kills as few people (the ultimate violation of a human's liberty) as possible.





Not during the Vietnam War.

I wasn't voting then. I am now though.




Do you even know what fascism is? If you did, you could not say the GOP are the fascists and still give the Democrats a pass when they are the ones nationalizing industries as quickly as they can. What does fascism say about nationalizing industries?

Fascism is militaristic. That's the GOP. Facism builds bombs and guns and the force projection tools of the state. That's the GOP.
Fascism hates the "other" and violates their civil rights based on their religious beliefs or ethnicity. This is the GOP.



I guess Vietnamese and Cambodians don't count.

Not in my adult lifetime and not on my tax dollar no, cause they haven't been carpet-bombed. The Iraqis on the other hand...




You're in effect cutting off your nose to spite your face. A true Libertarian could not vote for a Party that advocates big government, high taxes, Government run health care, nationalizing of businesses, bailouts, etc.


Sure they might. If the alternative was to vote for Big Government (for war), deficit spending on wars (instead of paying for them with high taxes.. ), health care made artificially costly by government regulation and corporate influence in the halls of governance to guarantee their monopolies, the crypto-nationalization of vast sectors of the economy (the military-industrial complex) and ...

let's not forget tens of thousands of corpses all over Mesopotamia.

It's like choosing nerve gas vs. the bubonic plague. If I have atropine handy I might take my chances with the nerve gas.




WTF are you talking about?!?! Hippies?!?!

The Drug war dude. The GOP puts my bros in a cage.



They worship Government. Is that any better?

Sure worshiping government is better than worshipping a God. Give me a godless liberal instead of a fundamentalist christian "tea party" member any day.
I can reason with the godless liberal.




Just leave now and save us the economic implosion part please.


Ah yes. I was wondering when you were going to employ the standard neo-conservative "Love It or Leave It!" line. Disgusting but pretty par for the course with you.



I can't believe I'm arguing with a guy who WANTS our economy to implode. I want whats best for the country. You admittedly do not. That says alot.

An economic implosion precipitated by a collapse of the fiat currency would be excellent empirical evidence to the American populace that we need hard currency and sound finance.

If running the risk of that is the price we pay for not lending our votes, money and honor to the war-pigs then so be it.

Nobody said the liberals were right. They are just not as psychotic and deluded as the GOP.

[1bad65]

No more replying in sections, it's gotten too big. ;)

The Libertarian Party does not agree with what you said, that's why you won't source them. Don't play games by saying 'you wont do my work for me'. The Libertarian Party has a website, I already checked it. Nowhere does it say "The fundamental proposition of libertarian political philosophy is the NON-INITIATION OF FORCE.", so stop trying to put words in their mouths.

Fascism is not just being militaristic. Educate yourself on this topic before comparing Parties to it. Nationalizing industry is a HUGE part of their philosophy. And Obama is in lock step with the Fascists on this issue whether you like it or not. Also, look at South Carolina, where the Democrats are trying to circumvent the will of the people as expressed in an election.

And why choose bankruptcy? A person with true beliefs would not compromise them by NEVER voting for their true beliefs, which is what you admit you do. At least I vote for the best candidate of my choice in the primaries, then in the general election I vote for the lesser of two evils if my choice did not win the primary.

Last I checked, it's not just the GOP who puts people in jail for drugs. The only Party I know of calling for legalization of drugs is the Libertarian Party, who you admit you do not vote for.

Not gonna argue religion, but putting trust in Government is pure foolishness. Government never made anyone great, successful, etc.

I never said "Love it or leave it". Of course you liberals love to tell people what we REALLY said, what we REALLY mean, how we are REALLY racist, etc. Do us all a favor, debate what I say, not what you say I said. My point was that if you are going to vote to destroy the country and then leave it (which you said you doing in order to see our economy "implode"), I'd prefer you either left now or stopped voting.

I do agree with this part, however:


An economic implosion precipitated by a collapse of the fiat currency would be excellent empirical evidence to the American populace that we need hard currency and sound finance.

[1bad65]

And I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of a Democrat further 'left' than Obama. And not Comrade Kucinich, please. ;)

[1bad65]

The Drug war dude. The GOP puts my bros in a cage.

But the Democrats put them in cages as well AND they advocate stealing their property on top of that!

"Concerned about the the broad effect of federal forfeiture laws, Henry Hyde (R-Ill., House Judiciary Committee Chairman) and John Conyers (D-Mich., the senior Democrat on the Committee) teamed up to introduce the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act in a rare display of bipartisan unity. The Representatives were concerned about the problem of police using seized property or funds to finance their own operations. As Bob Barr (R-Ga.) put it, "In many jurisdictions, it has become a monetary tail wagging the law enforcement dog." Testifying before the Judiciary Committee, Willie Jones of Nashville, TN, gave an example of this abuse. Engaged in the landscaping business, Mr. Jones planned to buy a shrubbery in Houston, TX. Nurseries prefer cash from out-of-town buyers, so Mr. Jones planned to go there with $9,000 in cash. Officers detained him at the airport: suspicious of the large amount of cash, they accused him of being involved in drug-related activities. They eventually let him go, but they kept the money, and refused to even give him a receipt for it. Because he did not have 10% of the money seized to put up as a bond, he could not afford to challenge the seizure in the usual way. Disturbed by this and other similar stories of excess, the House members voted to approve H.R. 1658 to curb this abuse. The Clinton administration said that the bill would have a negative impact on the war on drugs. The House soundly rejected an administration-favored alternative, however -- supporters of H.R. 1658 said the alternative bill would expand the federal power, not narrow it."

Source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/

So we have ultra-conservative Bob Barr on the same side you claim to be on, and Bill Clinton on the other side. And yet you side with Clinton's Party on this?