Still waiting, MBBF....

I am very seriously, honestly interested in polls that indicate a "vast majority" of the troops in Iraq support that war. From any year. I could see it being possible in 2008 or 2009, but I've not seen a poll with those numbers.

GOP talking heads, as a whole, don't consistently and repeatedly try to paint the Democratic Party as being led by a bunch of far-left radical activists? Really?

Given the recent run of fake veterans against the War joining legitimate veteran organizations, I'm not sure any poll numbers are legit at this point.

Meet another fake vet against the war -- "Rick Duncan" (Wizbang)

The poll I referenced was from 2008. I'm pissed that I can't find it because it allows you to avoid the legitimate topics actually related to the administration which this thread is supposed to be about, but instead continues to focus for large stints on the previous administration. You can be sure that when I find it, I'll post it.

So are we going to play the game where the extremes of the party are the true nature of the party? I thought this thread was about legitimate discussion about the real nature of the politics rather than what Rush Limbaugh or similar extreme Democrats say, but I obviously was mistaken.

The core idiots of each party don't decide much of anything when it comes to the election. The moderate heads usually prevail.

Please do - I'd like to see that poll. Because the polls I've seen over the years from sources like the Military Times have shown nothing more than 60% support for the Iraq War, which isn't a "vast majority".

I could see, post-surge, the numbers being better, but then the question I'd be interested in seeing would be a breakdown of support for the war being fought then/now and support for the original decision to go to war. I would imagine, based on past evidence, that the latter number is still low.

And in all these we should be talking active military and Iraq veterans, to reference your original contention.

Man, I'm so glad you don't work for me. I wish I could make broad assertions to my peers based on small sample sizes and unreferenced blogs. All that link you pointed to says is that some guy, who is apparently an escaped mental patient, faked everyone out. And according to the blog, you can add him to the *gasp* 5 or so people that have apparently driven one veteran to leave some of these groups. How you can continue to post around here is mind bottling.

And by the way, about your statement about avoiding the thread topic, perhaps it needs to be changed because the topic is hopes and predictions. Maybe we should change it to "the continual feigned outrage/disappointment of somebody who never liked Obama complaining" thread.

I'm talking about GOP talking heads/prominent media figures, not all of whom are radical or Rush Limbaugh. But whatever, it's a bias argument that's not worth having, yet again, since I don't want to subject anyone to another Dutch tirade about media bias. :D

The number was around that percentage, so if you don't consider that a 'vast majority', then I suppose it isn't. I consider that a pretty high number given the lack of support early in the war effort as you rightly mention.

But we're past the hopes and predictions point. He's already broken several key campaign promises, yet he's glorified as being a man who's "willing to change" when the previous administration didn't get similar treatment late in that administration when they were signing bill after bill, pissing off the conservative base. If this is a thread for the continued spread of rainbows and unicorns, by all means, proceed.

Yeah, I'd term "vast majority" as being at least over 75%, probably closer to 85-90%.

Yes, it's definitely not that.

As I've asked you before, please list some of the broken campaign promises, or "180 degree turns" as you put it before, so we can analyze them. I'm not saying there aren't any, I'd just like you to be specific in the interest of furthering continuing meaningful conversation, as opposed to just throwing talking points around.


Look, people, it was ponies, not unicorns. The whole unicorn thing is one big red herring and I won't stand for it anymore.

I was just going to say this. I am not up on all the promises and, honestly, all of the things Obama has done since in office. But I am not aware of him directly breaking any promises. I am not into politics like most of you guys, but I like to think that I am somewhat in the loop seeing as that I work 2 blocks from Obama's house and live about a mile away. :)

Rush is hardly the extreme of the current GOP. In fact he enjoys the support of a "vast majority" of Republicans. From Gallup:


As for the true nature of the party, it's been widely reported that the RNC is going to hold a meeting where one of the primary objectives is to officially declare the Democratic Party as the Democrat Socialist Party. The whole problem is that the GOP is little more than the extremists these days.

As for Obama breaking promises, there was that whole public financing thingy.

OK, good example. Me, specifically, I didn't care about that, since I consider the whole electoral financing thing so broken anyway that if one held oneself to a promise like that, you'd be needlessly hamstringing yourself. A common sense decision, in my opinion.

Now, if he authored a major piece of legislation on campaign finance reform, and then skirted the spirit of that legislation, and possible minor aspects of the letter of that legislation, I might see a principle issue there.

Well technically we're talking about promises broken during Obama's presidency, not before.

Anyway that was a good call and I'm glad he did it.

How about the whole torturing and killing civilians on multiple continents thing?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure if he ever promised to stop that or not.

You're going to be more specific. Every president is going to be somewhat eventually responsible for innocent deaths (because there's always some sort of war going on).

oh damn I clicked on the link thinking there'd be some facts or {shock} a poll....nope, a blog.

Whenever I come into this thread, it's like a gang bang, and Mizzou B-ball fan is the bitch. It'd be nice to see someone else arguing against the mob. (I won't because I don't pay enough attention to politics, and am less conservative than a guy like MBBF)

1. I'm only conservative from a fiscal standpoint. I'm mostly with Obama and the Democrats when it comes to moral legislation. It just so happens that the current focus is on financial missteps, hence the reason I obviously come across as deeply opposed to Obama's leanings in that regard.

2. As you allude to, the gang-bang mentality exposes just how partisan most posters in this thread are, despite their attempts to look even-handed in their policy beliefs. I don't think there's any question that this is a left-leaning circle. It's always been that way for as long as I've been here and many of the political polls on this board bear that out.

Here's a few campaign pledges that have fallen by the wayside during the first few months of Mr. Obama's administration........

Obama pledge to go line-by-line to remove unnecessary pork during the campaign, but the first stimulus bill shot that out of the water.

Obama promised that all bills would be open for public consumption for 5 days before a vote, yet all major legislation has not followed that trend thus far, with the stimulus package being the glowing example.

Obama promised to get the troops home quickly, but some Democratic lawmakers feel betrayed by the lack of any real cutbacks in the Military budget. Granted, most of us knew this was an unrealistic goal when he pledged to bring everyone home quickly and perhaps Obama started to realize that when he softened his stance in the middle of the campaign, but it's still a campaign promise that didn't hold true.

Cracks appearing in Democratic unity | Washington Examiner

Obama is in favor of taxing health benefits, something he was decidedly against in campaign rhetoric.........

Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits - NYTimes.com

Obama attacked McCain numerous times on the campaign trail, stating that military tribunals were not the way to handle Gitmo prisoners. Now, he's asking to keep the tribunal system to try terror suspects the same way McCain proposed on the campaign trail.......

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts - NYTimes.com

but most of the country is conservative.....according to polls anyways ;)

I'd argue that the stimulus bill was a very special case, and also, it's only one bill, so far.


This is in the realm of Congress. Obama only has a limited amount of influence over the workings of Congress. Having said that, many have pointed out how open the new administration has been with public access to legislative text as well as government expenditures.


I think you're conflating two different things here.


He pledged to bring the troops home from Iraq as soon as was possible, and that's essentially what he's done. Unless you can point to a specific timeline he reneged on, you're putting words into the mouths of his supporters.


Read the article. Officials in his administration have said that they wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a partial taxing of some health benefits if they're part of a good and comprehensive tax package. That's not even a subtle distinction from what you claim the article says.


No he's not. He's proposing keeping a significantly changed tribunal system (changed to address serious legal flaws raised by experts over the past 6 years) for a small minority of Gitmo prisoners still remaining. McCain was OK with using the tribunal system, as it existed under Bush, for pretty much all of the detainees. Again, a gulf in understanding here.

Anyway, nothing there I'm getting riled up about. And no 180s, in my opinion.

I don't think that's always the case. The Palin pick was made by the extremes in the Republican Party. There were a lot more moderate picks that would have given him much better chances at winning like Ridge.

If you are truly a fiscal conservative, why is all your anger toward Democrats? I rarely see you comment negatively on the Republican Party that went crazy with spending and "socialism" for most of the decade. Just seems to me that you dislike someone because it says D next to their name and not their policies.

I tried...simply not worth it...so now I just sit and read one man's desparate fight.

This made me laugh my head off:

Terms of Service

not sure which thread to throw this into but it's assinine nonetheless:

I try not to get too involved, but I disagree with this point:

I'm not sure when that poll was taken, but Limbaugh got just a 47% favorability rating from Republicans (19% overall) in the CBS news poll taken on March 17:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_031709.pdf

Compare with with someone like Al Franken who will probably representing the senate for the Democrats soon. I doubt Limbaugh or Ann Coulter would stand much of a chance in a state-wide election. My point here is that each side tries to paint the other as more sympathetic to the "extremes", but I'd say around 45-55% of each party supports their own demagoguery creators.

When the party is out of power, the leaders do some drastic things. We had everything from the "government in exile" lead by Al Gore to leaders in the senate saying George Bush is running Soviet Gulags and using Nazi tactics. I don't see how any of this is less radical than what happened between 2002 and 2008.

It is what it is, the party out of power is desperate to regain their upper hand so the massive hyperbole comes out to play. This isn't an original tactic or anything specific to one party.

Does the socialism angle really work? I mean it had no effect on the 2008 elections and isn't taboo like communist or nazi. Not to mention that Republicans are socialists too and this country is in part a socialist country.

Just seems like a desperate move. There has to be better ways of turning things around for them.

"The world is burning in the fire of desire, in greed, arrogance and excessive ego."

"The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance."

(Sri Guru Granth Sahib)

My hope for the Obama presidency was for him to meet James Harrison, but now that's out the window. Damn Harrison!

What was it that the Russian and German people thought they were getting instead of communism and fascism when they were hoping for change? (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...National Socialists....be careful about what you wish to glamorize.)

Comparing Obama to murderous dictators in Germany and Russia is just silly. If you truly think Obama is leading this country down the path Hitler did, we are on two different planets.

And what I'm saying about socialism isn't that it's good or bad. I'm saying that our country is socialist to an extent and just about everyone in this country likes it that way. Republicans are just as socialist as Democrats, they just disagree on what parts to socialize and how to do it. My argument is with this crazy notion that Democrats are somehow socialists while Republicans are not.

This country is a socialist country. If they want to argue that Democrats are more socialist than they are, fine. But this idea that they hate socialism is just plain ignorance to the word and history of our country.

I offer my comments as a response to your interest for more socialism. If you're only defense is Obamamania, then I'm not going to follow you down that slipperly slope.


Obviously there are socialist parts. But is America--as a whole & compared to other nations--more socialist than capitalist?


Well good, no need to argue about that!

I have no interest in more socialism and never stated that I did. In fact, I'd love to see a cutback by our government in a lot of social programs (I lean a bit libertarian). But I'm not naive enough to believe that the Republicans are the answer to this as they sat there and expanded government for the 6 years this decade that they had total power of government.

I don't really know. We do spend less as a nation than other countries. But I still don't think being 75% socialist vs 80% socialist makes one country capitalists and the other socialists. In fact, you could argue that with our massive interjection into the mortage, banking, financial, and insurance industries over the past year, we're more socialist than they are. Those industries are essentially socialized (well capitalism for profits, socialism for losses) and I can't think of many other nations that have done the same (besides socialist countries like China).


That's just what the Republicans should say and the whole reason for my disdain. It's the labeling of one party as socialists and the other party as not.

I don't think it's been discussed much here, but the whole Notre Dame thing bothers me a lot.

First, if you are a student or alumni of the school and are upset by him speaking, that's fine. I completely respect someone tied to the school having a problem and even protesting the decision.

My problem is with people who are trying to disrupt this ceremony for the graduates. It's a big day for them, something they've worked hard at and forked over a lot of money for. So if you have no affiliation with the school, mind your own fucking business. These idiots running on to the private campus are morons.

And this isn't necessarily about Obama or my view on abortion. I felt the same way about the shitbags who would protest Bush's commencement speeches.

Can they have them arrested for trespassing (since it is a private university)?

They have been arresting them.

Wow...I need the drunk guy thread.

I'll give him props for having the common sense enough to not release detainee footage.

Maybe it's been the past two months of working with the lady who lost her son in afghanistan, but I really wish he'd bring a lot of the troops home.

+1

You can add this to the list as to why I dislike Notre Dame. It's about the kids who are graduating and the attention should be made to the kids who are graduating from an admittedly prestigious school.

How does that make you dislike Notre Dame more?

It's an irrational hate influenced mostly from my love of college football.

What I don't understand is why would the abortion issue even come up in a commencement address? And why would he debate the issue in a place like ND? It all just seems very odd to me...

Ummmm, have you seen the defecit projections that Obama has put out there? He's making Bush's defecit spending look timid.

And you obviously weren't paying attention in the last 6-9 months of Bush. I was on here hammering all of the stupid bills he signed on his way out the door. Little did I know just how far Obama would go to trump that fiscal irresponsibility by the Republican president. Obama has found a way to make Bush look like a tightwad in comparison, which is shocking.

So, let me get this straight. You're the vice-president and you have a top secret bunker built under your home that will hopefully keep you safe in a catastrophic situation. You go to a dinner and use top secret information which may save your life as dinner conversation? Genius, pure genius. Obama's probably regretting that he sent Biden to that dinner instead of going himself.

Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Good editorial from George Will concerning the attempted infiltration of government into the private business sector.

George F. Will - The Obama Administration's Economic Lawlessness - washingtonpost.com

I hope and predict that Obama will choose senior military officials who will make decisions based on what is right for America and not on what would best accord with random quotes from the book of Daniel.

http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret