The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oh I'm glad

And lucky too!

One of her ads is harping on Brown when he was the mayor of Oakland and how the school system failed because of him. As far as I know, mayors in California don't have control over the school systems here.

I can't wait until the 2nd Tuesday in November is over.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm disappointed that it's looking more and more like prop 19 won't pass in California. So we won't have the Obama administration stepping up federal criminal enforcement of state-legal California marijuana. The public response to which would have been very interesting.

It was looking good for a while, but, someone analyzed the language of the proposition and basically, they are saying there's no standards on how it is to be regulated from one city to the next.

[albionmoonlight]

One nice thing here has been that the House races in the Triangle are not competitive, the Senate race is not competitive, and we have no Governor election going on right now.

Basically, TV has been pretty silent, and it is easy enough to ignore/laugh at the over the top flyers and mailings of the "If you truly love your children, then you will vote for John Smith for county assessor board seat #3." type.

Basically, having lived in a swing state in '08, I am realizing that it is much nicer to have politics off the TV than on it.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm disappointed that it's looking more and more like prop 19 won't pass in California. So we won't have the Obama administration stepping up federal criminal enforcement of state-legal California marijuana. The public response to which would have been very interesting.

I agree. Regardless of your view on Prop 19, it would have been a great debate to have.

[albionmoonlight]

double dola:

It is also noteworthy (to me) that the only difference that I can see between Elizabeth Dole (NC Republican senator voted out in '08) and Richard Burr (NC Republican senator who will be easily re-elected in 10) is that Dole had the misfortune of being on the ballot during the Obama-wave election and Burr has the fortune of being on the ballot during the GOP-midterm-wave election.

I'm probably channeling a bit too much Nate Silver here, but it is amazing how little their performance has to do with their campaigns or even with them. Macroscopic forces outside of the control of any one senator drove both results (IMHO).

[JediKooter]

This makes me sick. Granted, it does not show what happened prior to this happening, but, regardless, completely disgusting actions by those people. I really hope that this isn't something that Rand Paul supporters and Tea Partiers approve of.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Actually I just talked to them all and they all approve of it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Apparently it was the (now former) Bourbon County Commissioner for the Paul Campaign that did the stomping.

Real lovely.

[RainMaker]

WTF?!?!? No one stepped in and knocked the shit out of the guys for assaulting a woman? I don't give a shit what you stand for, if a guy is curb stomping a defenseless woman, I'm knocking him out.

[Passacaglia]

Well one guy kind of held out his hand, gesturing for the guy with his shoe pressing down on the girl's head to stop. So that's something.

[RainMaker]

Maybe I was raised differently.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe I was raised differently.

You're a compassionate human being, not a piece of walking, talking excrement.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Ridiculous situation all around.

There are three clear acts of stupidity here and one despicable act. First, whomever the organizers for the event were, they badly failed in their job to have adequate security in place. Second, MoveOn.org for paying some chick to leave from PA and follow Rand Paul around just to get a stupid freaking picture. Third, the idiot chick for trying to charge through a crowd to get at a political figure while wearing a wig and without any clearly identifiable purpose.

Then there's dirtbag who decided to be a big man and put his foot on her shoulder and stomp down. Thankfully he's been charged with 4th degree assault and hopefully is found guilty.

Anyone complaining about her being taken down is just stupid. I help train US Capitol Police for situations just like this. If I were in a crowd around a political figure, and someone charged like that, I'd put them down and keep them there until security/police show up. It's the right thing to do regardless of who the politician involved is. Anything that can be legitimately considered a threatening act, and this very clearly could, should be treated as such.

Kudos to the guy who grabbed her around the waste and took her to the ground. There was no way to tell what was really going on and he acted responsibly with justifiable force.

Difference is this wasn't police or private security, it was some cowboy who happens to work for the campaign.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

The guy who first grabs her by the waist and takes her down and the guy who stomp her are different fucking people. The first one did the right thing. The second is rightly charged with 4th degree assault.

The lack of security/police is part of the problem and that's the fault of whomever organized the event in the first place.

Agreed. I wasn't arguing that the guy who grabbed her by the waist and took her down was a horrible human being.

It's the guy who stomps on her while she's on the ground that's a POS.

Calm down.

[DaddyTorgo]

Tim Profitt, Rand Paul Supporter, Admits To Confronting Woman At Debate

Now with her side of the story, including the fact she'd been at Rand Paul events before and the campaign staff knew her.

[panerd]

LOL.

Disclaimer: Rand Paul has shown his true colors and is just another Republicrat and nothing like his father. If I lived in Kentucky I would definitely vote Libertarian and think Paul is as useless (maybe more) than a Democrat would be. He supports more war, more government in social issues, yuck. I had higher hopes when he first appeared on the scene but he sold out to the machine at some point very early in his campaign.

However, if you guys really think this is more than the good old smear tricks that campaigns have been running for years and are going to blame Rand Paul for a volunteer (and a very questionable "volunteer" at that) than go on with your Bush Jr/Obama back and forth. You can't really buy into this pre-election bullshit can you? Rand Paul has nothing to do with this (though of course it is front page news on all the liberal stations across the nation. LOL)

[DaddyTorgo]

Questionable volunteer? He was the County whatever-its-called for the campaign.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by panerd

LOL.

Disclaimer: Rand Paul has shown his true colors and is just another Republicrat and nothing like his father. If I lived in Kentucky I would definitely vote Libertarian and think Paul is as useless (maybe more) than a Democrat would be. He supports more war, more government in social issues, yuck. I had higher hopes when he first appeared on the scene but he sold out to the machine at some point very early in his campaign.

However, if you guys really think this is more than the good old smear tricks that campaigns have been running for years and are going to blame Rand Paul for a volunteer (and a very questionable "volunteer" at that) than go on with your Bush Jr/Obama back and forth. You can't really buy into this pre-election bullshit can you? Rand Paul has nothing to do with this (though of course it is front page news on all the liberal stations across the nation. LOL)

Honestly, I don't think most of us here are saying this says anything about Rand Paul -- we're just pissed that this shit goes on.

[panerd]

And yes I would feel absolutely the same way if a Republican of some sort (say a member of a anti-spending group) was put down on the ground by a bunch of Democrats. Completely set-up and staged nonsense.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Honestly, I don't think most of us here are saying this says anything about Rand Paul -- we're just pissed that this shit goes on.

LOL

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Questionable volunteer? He was the County whatever-its-called for the campaign.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, I don't think this has anything to do with Paul. More to do with people who are that caught up in politics are the bottom rung of our society.

[Passacaglia]

Good thing I didn't say all!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

LOL

I wasn't saying Paul had anything to do with it, or condoned it or whatever (although it sure took him long enough to come out with his outrage against it).

But you can't call the guy a "questionable volunteer" if he's the county-head for the campaign. Not like they just picked him up off the street or something. That's a mischaracterization of his role.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I wasn't saying Paul had anything to do with it, or condoned it or whatever (although it sure took him long enough to come out with his outrage against it).

But you can't call the guy a "questionable volunteer" if he's the county-head for the campaign. Not like they just picked him up off the street or something. That's a mischaracterization of his role.

OK I will come out and say it and call me Alex Jones if you want. The rank and file Republicans hate Rand Paul. Why I have no idea, unlike his father he is basically just them with a little more anti-spending rhetoric. He will continue supporting all the wars and social nonsense the Republicans support. So when this happens within a week of the election it smells of a complete set-up. Not by Democrats but by Republicans. I could be wrong and the guy is just an idiot but it doesn't seem right to me. Seems like the same old bullshit tricks that have been going on for years.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Um, that of course is why the RSCC is spending millions on the race and this race is one of the ones _they_ have to win to have any shot at the Senate majority. So yes, it is completely out there.

Ever since Ross Perot mysteriously disappeared from the 1992 election campaign I don't put anything past the behind the scenes guys that really control the power. Nothing. Don't know which side set this one up but it seems pretty far fetched to believe it is just a coincidence that the election is next Tuesday.

[WSR]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

+1

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Learn what Socialism is before using the word.

You're both right (and I'm sure you love to hear that). I should have used Marxist, not Socialist . . .

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by WSR

You're both right (and I'm sure you love to hear that). I should have used Marxist, not Socialist . . .

LMAO

Like I said - clearly you're one of those "independents" who just so happens to vote Republican 10 out of 10 times.

That or you've got the bad taste to watch a steady diet of Fox news.

[Glengoyne]

Well one of my friends said that "stomp" was an exaggeration. Certainly to say that her head was stomped on is an over statement, as it didn't look like her head was directly involved. The guy definitely shoved her down with his foot. When I think of stomp I think of a foot raised above and then thrusted down, while this guy's foot was clearly placed on her before he did his dirty work. Not the kind of hair I'd want to split. Stomp is fair...I'm not sure about "head".

In any case, I agree with HiFi. Citizens stopping her, and bringing her to the ground seems reasonable, and not unduly necessary. Shoving her or kicking her crosses the line. I don't have problem with charges being filed, although wouldn't this be battery and not assault?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by WSR

You're both right (and I'm sure you love to hear that). I should have used Marxist, not Socialist . . .

Pick up an 8th grade Civics book when you get a chance.

Just because you heard the word thrown around on some talk show doesn't make it right. Read what Marxism is and then realize how utterly stupid you sound. You are up there with those who called Bush a Nazi. People parroting something they heard to try and look informed, while looking like a moron to anyone with an IQ over 80 (or an 8th grade education in government).

[JPhillips]

Now the stomper is asking for an apology from the stompee. Sounds crazy, but the guy Cheney shot apologized, so I guess this makes some sort of sense.

[SirFozzie]

"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt said. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."

What. The. Fuck.

At least the Rand Paul campaign fired this asshole.

[JediKooter]

Everybody is a victim...

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Everybody is a victim...

How dare you say that to me? I demand an apology.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

How dare you say that to me? I demand an apology.

You demand an apology from me? Now I'm owed an apology.

[JPhillips]

I'd like an apology for having to read about these apologies.

[WSR]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Pick up an 8th grade Civics book when you get a chance.

Just because you heard the word thrown around on some talk show doesn't make it right. Read what Marxism is and then realize how utterly stupid you sound. You are up there with those who called Bush a Nazi. People parroting something they heard to try and look informed, while looking like a moron to anyone with an IQ over 80 (or an 8th grade education in government).

Good times. Let's keep this up.

8th grade civics book? I would look at one, but it's obvious you're not through with it yet.

For the sake of argument, the summary of Marxism from Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy is fairly straight forward for ya. It states, in relevant part,

The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism.

Karl Marx (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So, although I initially supported President Obama, I have moved closer to the Conservative's point of view since his election. The expansion of government is alarming to me at this point and I want less government in my life, not more. And, I see Capitalism, which I believe has made this country so great, slowly eroding when it is seen as evil (as portrayed by the powerful public employee unions and the President).

I live in CA and I have plenty of friends who are Democrats, and the majority of them are disillusioned at this point with Obama. (Which is pretty consistent with polls I've seen.) Health Care Reform, the landmark legislation that will likely define President Obama, is not being well received by the folks I know. When it is fully implemented in 2018, I believe the politicians instrumental in passing it (Pelosi, Reid, Obama) will be vilified for generations to come. Once our employers decide to pay the penalty and send us off to the exchanges, we will realize the claim that we would keep our health plans was unfounded.

The problem with all this is that when the Republicans last controlled Congress and the Presidency, they went crazy and spent money like drunken sailors. So, I don't have a lot of faith in them either at this point.

That is why the bipartisan approach is so important, which is where I jumped into this thread. I expect inexperienced Congressmen to be partisan, but the tact Obama is taking is really beneath the office of the Presidency. I believe most Americans are moderate and just want these politicians to quite the bickering and get to solving the country's problems.

[Groundhog]

Obama is who I hoped he wasn't.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by WSR

Good times. Let's keep this up.

8th grade civics book? I would look at one, but it's obvious you're not through with it yet.

For the sake of argument, the summary of Marxism from Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy is fairly straight forward for ya. It states, in relevant part, Karl Marx (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So, although I initially supported President Obama, I have moved closer to the Conservative's point of view since his election. The expansion of government is alarming to me at this point and I want less government in my life, not more. And, I see Capitalism, which I believe has made this country so great, slowly eroding when it is seen as evil (as portrayed by the powerful public employee unions and the President).

I live in CA and I have plenty of friends who are Democrats, and the majority of them are disillusioned at this point with Obama. (Which is pretty consistent with polls I've seen.) Health Care Reform, the landmark legislation that will likely define President Obama, is not being well received by the folks I know. When it is fully implemented in 2018, I believe the politicians instrumental in passing it (Pelosi, Reid, Obama) will be vilified for generations to come. Once our employers decide to pay the penalty and send us off to the exchanges, we will realize the claim that we would keep our health plans was unfounded.

The problem with all this is that when the Republicans last controlled Congress and the Presidency, they went crazy and spent money like drunken sailors. So, I don't have a lot of faith in them either at this point.

That is why the bipartisan approach is so important, which is where I jumped into this thread. I expect inexperienced Congressmen to be partisan, but the tact Obama is taking is really beneath the office of the Presidency. I believe most Americans are moderate and just want these politicians to quite the bickering and get to solving the country's problems.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Obama is who I hoped he wasn't.

Muslim?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by WSR

Good times. Let's keep this up.

8th grade civics book? I would look at one, but it's obvious you're not through with it yet.

For the sake of argument, the summary of Marxism from Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy is fairly straight forward for ya. It states, in relevant part, Karl Marx (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I know exactly what Marxism is. I simply don't see how we are shifting anywhere near Communism. Can you provide some examples of this? Understanding that Communism means the end of wage labor and abolishing of private property. As well as the ownership of the means of production. Those are some massive changes to everything I've seen take place although you seem to have more information on this than the rest of the world. Please enlighten us on what has been done to shift our country in that direction (and big spending doesn't mean Communism).

Originally Posted by WSR

So, although I initially supported President Obama, I have moved closer to the Conservative's point of view since his election. The expansion of government is alarming to me at this point and I want less government in my life, not more. And, I see Capitalism, which I believe has made this country so great, slowly eroding when it is seen as evil (as portrayed by the powerful public employee unions and the President).

Can you provide examples of how Capitalism has eroded?

Last I checked, we were all able to start companies, work for who we want to work for, and pretty much do whatever we want with our careers. Out of the 500 largest companies in the world, nearly 30% of them are based in the United States. I run a small business myself, so if you have insight into when I can expect to be taken over, it would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by WSR

I live in CA and I have plenty of friends who are Democrats, and the majority of them are disillusioned at this point with Obama. (Which is pretty consistent with polls I've seen.) Health Care Reform, the landmark legislation that will likely define President Obama, is not being well received by the folks I know. When it is fully implemented in 2018, I believe the politicians instrumental in passing it (Pelosi, Reid, Obama) will be vilified for generations to come. Once our employers decide to pay the penalty and send us off to the exchanges, we will realize the claim that we would keep our health plans was unfounded.

I doubt it will define him. Medicare didn't define President Bush despite it being a much larger health care overhaul that will cost much more in the long term. Can you tell me what aspect of the health care plan has you so disillusioned?

As for employers paying a penalty and dropping you, wouldn't you be fine with that? You just railed a paragraph up about capitalism, and by God in a free capitalistic economy, employers should have a right to determine who they provide health insurance to. In fact, you should be against any penalty whatsoever for a company not carrying you since that's bigger government. Unless your "big government" anger doesn't apply to your health insurance. You are worried about employers not covering you, yet his plan actually gives them incentive to carry you. I'm thinking you didn't quite think that argument through.

Originally Posted by WSR

The problem with all this is that when the Republicans last controlled Congress and the Presidency, they went crazy and spent money like drunken sailors. So, I don't have a lot of faith in them either at this point.

That is why the bipartisan approach is so important, which is where I jumped into this thread. I expect inexperienced Congressmen to be partisan, but the tact Obama is taking is really beneath the office of the Presidency. I believe most Americans are moderate and just want these politicians to quite the bickering and get to solving the country's problems.

Here's a little secret, both parties are the same. They will both spend ridiculous amounts of money because in the end, it's what people want. Sure we don't want a giant national debt, but we also want things. We want Social Security, Medicare, good schools, nice roads, and a big bad military to keep us safe. There have been a lot of polls that show this. Ask someone if they want to cut spending and they'll say yes. Ask them if they want to cut education, military, health care, roads, police, etc and they'll say no.

Now take a look at where our spending comes from. The majority of it is tied up in Social Security, Medicare, military, and Veterans benefits. About 67% goes to those areas. Another 9% goes to just paying interest on previous debt. So the only way you're going to really put a dent into our deficit is by cutting those areas.

So by all means, point us in the direction of the candidate who is on the stump promoting cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, and our military. I'd love to see how many votes they'll get. And if you aren't for cutting those areas, you aren't serious about cutting spending.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So by all means, point us in the direction of the candidate who is on the stump promoting cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, and our military. I'd love to see how many votes they'll get. And if you aren't for cutting those areas, you aren't serious about cutting spending.

This cannot be said enough, IMO.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know exactly what Marxism is. I simply don't see how we are shifting anywhere near Communism. Can you provide some examples of this? Understanding that Communism means the end of wage labor and abolishing of private property. As well as the ownership of the means of production. Those are some massive changes to everything I've seen take place although you seem to have more information on this than the rest of the world. Please enlighten us on what has been done to shift our country in that direction (and big spending doesn't mean Communism).


Can you provide examples of how Capitalism has eroded?

Last I checked, we were all able to start companies, work for who we want to work for, and pretty much do whatever we want with our careers. Out of the 500 largest companies in the world, nearly 30% of them are based in the United States. I run a small business myself, so if you have insight into when I can expect to be taken over, it would be appreciated.


I doubt it will define him. Medicare didn't define President Bush despite it being a much larger health care overhaul that will cost much more in the long term. Can you tell me what aspect of the health care plan has you so disillusioned?

As for employers paying a penalty and dropping you, wouldn't you be fine with that? You just railed a paragraph up about capitalism, and by God in a free capitalistic economy, employers should have a right to determine who they provide health insurance to. In fact, you should be against any penalty whatsoever for a company not carrying you since that's bigger government. Unless your "big government" anger doesn't apply to your health insurance. You are worried about employers not covering you, yet his plan actually gives them incentive to carry you. I'm thinking you didn't quite think that argument through.



Here's a little secret, both parties are the same. They will both spend ridiculous amounts of money because in the end, it's what people want. Sure we don't want a giant national debt, but we also want things. We want Social Security, Medicare, good schools, nice roads, and a big bad military to keep us safe. There have been a lot of polls that show this. Ask someone if they want to cut spending and they'll say yes. Ask them if they want to cut education, military, health care, roads, police, etc and they'll say no.

Now take a look at where our spending comes from. The majority of it is tied up in Social Security, Medicare, military, and Veterans benefits. About 67% goes to those areas. Another 9% goes to just paying interest on previous debt. So the only way you're going to really put a dent into our deficit is by cutting those areas.

So by all means, point us in the direction of the candidate who is on the stump promoting cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, and our military. I'd love to see how many votes they'll get. And if you aren't for cutting those areas, you aren't serious about cutting spending.

RainMaker wins.

Much more patience than I have to type that all out...kudos to you man.

[molson]

We're not heading towards a socialist state but I don't think that it's irrelevant, for discussion's sake, that many posters here (and it's safe to assume, many democrats in power), believe such a system is not only desirable, but practical for America. Their poltiical views are based on whatever would take us in that general direction, just like some extreme conservatives' views are are based on whatever would take us in the general direction of a theocracy. It doesn't mean we'll actually get to either (I hope), but it's not irrelevant to recognize who WOULD take us to either place if they could.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually, 92% of American's would prefer wealth distribution like Sweden's over ours.

92% of people want more money then they have. Are these the same people they poll that want lower taxes but 10X the government services?

Sweden's awesome, I love sweden. My grandparents are from Sweden. It ain't happening here though for 6 hundred billion reasons. Our government (either party) can't do 1% of what Sweden does with about 10,000X of the money (numbers made up and exagerated). Sweden's also not really a socialist state. They like their private property. They also don't like outsiders. It's easy to take care of everyone at a small party when you don't let anyone else in and you have lots of shit to give away.

If Vermont split of as their own country, closed the borders, everyone would be happy, there would be limited wealth disparity, and they'd have a higher standard of living than the U.S. as a whole. The same thing just isn't going to work with the entire U.S., at least until a third party emerged (not holding my breath).

For me, the best we can hope for with what we have if for the government to be as small as possible. I'm not so much "small government" as I am "small American government". At least leave more for the state governments, which can more easily be reformed. In Sweden, there's no reason to be "small government" because they don't have Democrats (vomit) and Republicans (vomit) running things. I guarantee if we send our politicians, and political parties, and corporations, and lobbyists over there to run things we could ruin Sweden in just a few days.

Here, the liberals actually try to convince us that the Democratic party and Obama is the answer, and that these elections between D dickhead and R dickhead for legislative office matter. I don't know whether that's sad or whether they're trying to trick me, but I ain't buying it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yeah, all the American government ever has done is defeat fascism, build an Interstate Highway system, put a man on the moon, all but eliminate extreme elderly poverty, and cover the health care of the elderly for much cheaper than private insurance.

But yes, Sweden's a social democratic state. Which is where I, who's probably the most liberal poster on here, am politically. I've never seen anybody on this board advocating for taking over the means of production.

The current versions of the Democratic and Republican party are not representative of the greatness of this country.

You're not Sweden politically, you lack the nationalism and racism. And you're not religious enough (or at least spirtual enough).