What if Obama was not a Democrat
I find it interesting when Democrats say the only reason people will vote for Romney is because he is a Republican. They chastise the people on the right who are loyal to their party. They cannot see that people will not vote for Obama because he is doing a lousy job. OF course it is Ok for them to vote and be loyal to their party.
So I wonder, what would they say about Obama during this re-election campaign if Obama was a Republican and there was a different Democrat running for President. Would they vote for him? Would they like his policies? Would they still like Obamacare?Obama would have never been elected in the first place if he was a republican. It is not acceptable for minorities of any kind to be anything other than democrat. Time and time again this is proven.
I agree. That and he would have been labeled a racist and worse.
Being a Republican or Conservative makes you fair game. Just go find Bill Maher's most recent slanders, as early as this weekend, against the family of Sarah Palin.It has been PROVEN? by whom? There is a tendency for Republicans to be WASPs, but the Republican party embraces many ethnicities/minorities. That's a pretty strong statement and pretty narrow minded. Bottom line, Barack Obama does not ascribe to the ideologies of he Republican party. THAT, my friend is why he's a member of the different party. So, who PROVED that he 'applied' for membership and was denied?
Who said he had been proven to be denied? I said that minorities who were republican were not accepted. Meaning by democrats. Powell, palin, and Rice just to name a few minorities who were republicans and downed by the dems who claim to protect minorities. I am neither republican nor dem so it is not relevant to me.
I can guarantee you one thing...it would be far worse than they spoke of George Bush and they would have ample reason to speak as such. This man is not a Republican or a Democrat...he is clearly nothing more than a Socialist totally centered on making the American people as dependent on big government as possible. The Democrats will long bear the burdens politically that have been imposed on their party by this one man. The true philosophy of the Democrat is dead relative to the party concerns and directions and will continue to be unless the people of that party retake control of it. WB
One mistake. Obama is not a Democrat. He's a moderate Republican.
The majority of the Republican party now are not even Republican anymore, they are HUGE GOVERNMENT (wars, spying, invasion of the bedroom, outlawing of nude art in public) somethings. They aren't libertarians.
It's appears to be a weird mix of theocrats (which is what most social conservatives are) and war mongers. Maybe warcrats? Doesn't have a good ring. That's the majority of the people making up the Grand Ole Party today.They are all the same any way.. Republicans and Democrats are just the right and left arms of the puppet master pulling the strings. It is interesting though, he might not have been elected as a Republican. I think it is only because during the time of the election people were fed up with Republicans. Turns out they are the same party.
For all the people who think Democrats are better than Republicans, it may look that way, but I would take a closer look.
Both parties support the wars over seas, Both parties support the Federal Reserve Monetary system, Both parties ignore the US Constitution, both parties spend your hard earned money like it's no big deal, both parties increase the debt no matter who is in office.
The only differences is their stance on gay marriage and other social issues which should be left to the states to figure out. The state is supposed to handle all issues that are not listed in the Constitution.If Obama were not a Donkey, he'd be married to Oprah Winfrey, and they'd live happily ever after ensuring their great tax write-offs by giving free cars to their herd of Elephants. After their days in the White House, they would write books that will publish easily due to their celeb status (which is a crying shame for actual artistic-creative writers), whose topics would range from the following:
What if we were Democrats?
Is the world ready for The Color Purple part II?
Why are we so raved over?
Why I support Obama, My Media Hubby.
Big Business was our Beginning - The Ooprama Story - A Tale of 2 O's.
Obama and Oprah - Oo so Rich.
It's all about the Benjamin's Baby!
If we had a kid, we'd name it Benjamin; if a girl, we'd name it Benjamin.
Why aren't we more powerful than we ought to be?
So on and so forth.If Obama were a Republican and still practiced his ways, I would be looking to become a Liberaterian. ObamaCare will add a minimum of $600 billion dollars in red ink with each passing year once implemented driven by premium subsidies which the legislation was decided to off load on the states under Medicaid. Since SCOTUS blocked that action and the legislation has no provision for federal subsidies then someone is going to have to come up with a modification to the current law. Currently there are 17 states that are not planning on taking the actions to establish the insurance exchanges mandated by the law. Now the federal government has lost it hammer over them and must face building the exchanges and absorbing the cost associated with them in those states...again, no funds provided for at the federal level by the legisilation. No wonder Obama claimed the legislation was "debt neutral" for it was off-loading all of the costs to the State level which eventually had to be covered by the state residents if the state was to balance its budget...that either equates to new taxes or a heavy reduction of spending in other areas to cover the costs. $600 billion dollars is equivalent to 25% of the federal government's total annual spending at this time. It is equivalent to the administrative cost of operating the federal government or funding the current military for one year. Whether that red ink accumulates at the federal level or it gets backdoored on the taxpayers through the State conduit built into the law...either way, the American taxpayer is eventually skewered...and Obama claims he wants to help the middle-class...Gee, thanks good buddy! WB
Then he'd be running for president in place of Stewart Alexander, Peta Lindsay, or Jerry White.
What you seriously think that the socialist party would let Obama anywhere near them? You obviously know nothing about socialism, in fact if you read their subscription they spend half their time criticizing him.
It's a good plan. Yea, I would have still voted for Obamacare. Maybe if more people in the party were more like Paul Ryan you might earn some respect again in this country. I mention Ryan merely because he at least comes up with a policy instead of most conservatives who simply yell and scream and cry against everything just because a democrat proposes it.
Instead, the GOP has weirdos like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. You have conservatives who have have basically claimed that the law isn't constitutional just because the SC says so. Um, yea, that's why you go the Supreme Court.
Micheal Savage was quoted as saying that John Roberts has a mental problems. Well, I guess that confirms everything we needed to know about George Bush.Social Security and MediCare were good plans, Cody and where are they today. They have been ravaged and the funds squandered by politicians starting with that famous Democrat, LBJ who came up with spending those funds on his Great Society...another failed socialist experiment that is carried on the backs of taxpayers in the form of a growing national debt. Those who seek office on the premise of reducing spending and cutting debt are anything but weird. It is a fairly sound process that has been proven to work...it's called sound financial management. No government can continue to buy what it cannot afford and continue to expect the taxpayer to pony up more and more until there is nothing left to pony up...then the ugly truth becomes the only reality...we are all responsible for our welfare and our future...not the government. wB
So your argument is that since it might not work 80 years from now, we shouldn't implement it today even though its better than what we have?
Does this also mean that you are against a social safety net?Cody, I think we all know the health care system in the US is broken. We need to fix it. The disagreement doesn't like there. Heck, healthcare costs are approaching 1/5 of our GDP. I think many feel that because it is so difficult to change it, we ought to spend more time and find a change that will suit more needs, that addresses for THE LONG HAUL, the problems. One that isn't a bandaid. I'm all for insuring people with pre-existing conditions (I have several myself and see how the cost of insuring me is a driver DOWN). However, I also see that the blanket statement, "we're going to insure everyone" has consequences and we've just seen the creates tax increase in American history, There are good things in this legislation.
Why not keep the good of this, the good of our present system and not throw the baby out with the bathwater? We need to continue to create a system that will serve ALL of us for a long time. This legislation is a start, no, not really a start, but a stab in the right direction. Now we know we can do it, it's been shown, we have the momentum. But to stop at the first thing that comes down the pike? Heck, I dated a few men, test drove more than one car before I committed.Obama wanted a lot more. The GOP could have offered a lot more as well. Instead, we got this yelling and screaming about how the health care plan would be a socialistic takeover of our freedom.
Is there another name for a plan that covers everyone, with the probability of delivering less, increasing taxes to do it and limiting my freedom and ability to choose.?.
Like I said earlier, we ought to strive to cover everyone, but there must be a way to do it better, without penalizing the drivers of our economy. Canadians and Brits come here for better care. Soon where will WE go?We'll have to beg government for it and give whatever it demands to get it. Seen from one perspective, that's what everything Obama and his political soldiers have done is all about. He said it himself years ago: in his world, government is god. Everyone is to be its worshiper.
Problem was the Obama care bill with a Democrat it's my way or the highway bill. It was put together behind closed doors, many of the Democrats that were not for had to be bribed in order for them to cast their vote to pass it. The Democrats sit back today and say all the Republicans could have offered up amendments. We all know that was not true, the Republicans were completely cut out of that legislation. Perhaps if they had worked together in the beginning Obama care wouldn't be the disaster that it is and will continue to be as more taxes, in addition to the ones already implemented, come to fruition over the next few years. Obama care needs to disappear.
I hear a lot of yelling, screaming and whining from the Democrat side. Oh, and name calling. So, I guess I don't really see the jab against conservatives being productive in any way. Just another jab. I'm a moderate conservative and usually see positives for all sides. Bill Clinton messed up a bit but I could see his heart was in the right place. I don't think Obama's heart is in the right place. He has been the most divisive president in office during my life. Whatever his party, he has to go. We need someone to bring our country together.
Denise, I so agree. I like to think of myself as one who sees, or tries to see the good in 'the the other side.' It's the way I live and I try to see the good in everyone. But, I don't see that Barack Obama doesn't bring much in the way of good to any table. I agree with you about Bill Clinton. There were things I could leave and many things I disagreed with Geroge W about.
glib, but hardly funny, Cody! (post about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman.) A certain Nancy Pelosi comes to mind.
Glib? How so? Are Palin and Bachman not an example of the lunacy of the right? Would your rather I go with Rick Perry? Perhaps Bob McDonnell?
DUDE, you have Nancy Pelosi! need I say more???? If anybody is a fool when the mouth opens it is her! Some of her most liked sayings!
We have to pass it to find out what is in it!!!
Food stamps a big bang for the buck!
In our recovery package we put new standards of accountability and transparency, which we hope will now apply.
“Every week we don’t pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.”
“Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program”
Imagine how many jobs we could create if everyone quit their jobs! Wait…..
“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.”
Needless to say, natural gas is a fossil fuel.
“I think it’s unAmerican.” (to enforce immigration law).
She said that to a Hispanic audience, and refused to clarify the statement when Fox News called her office later on for comment.
AV.....very good hypothetical question and some great responses as well.
All of this serves to re-affirm for me, once again, that my rationale, opinions and choices as a registered and practicing INDEPENDENT is the ONLY way I could go. For me, it equates to common sense and conscience, as well as representation of true FREEDOM in America.... Thank you.FPHERJ48,
I am wrting an article on this subject now and decided to get some reactions to include so I put this out there. The responses should be interestingI agree with you. I have been an independent most of my adult life. I just turned 18 when that group got the right to vote. In Louisiana, there was only one party--Democrat. All the elections were decided in the Democratic Primaries. The general election was a joke. That has change over the years, but by the time I was 20 I was registered as an independent. I may have to change that to no party. There is a move by some independents to organize--kind of defeats the whole purpose of being independent. We have one state representative, who lists his political affiliation as no party. I may do the same.
So the truth is a jab? All I'm saying is that the GOP needs to focus more on policy as opposed to this crazy rhetoric they have been spewing lately. It's hard to take them seriously when Sarah Palin is one of their more respected voices.
You mean the rhetoric that BOTH Democrats and republicans are spewing right? Surley you aren't naive enough to think it's just the GOP right?
The only logical people left, are sitting in the middle looking in both directions thinking you have all gone crazy!Yes, both sides do talk a lot.
However, at this point, I'm much more concerned about how far to the right the GOP is willing to go.
Fortunately, most people are moderates in this country. Unfortunately, being a moderate means you have to have two sides that are willing to work together. Absent that, you have to get what you can.
Tell me, which side is absolutely refusing to give an inch on most positions these days?By what I see neither are. All either side is doing is complaining about the other. I don't see the dems leaning toward the middle any more than the republicans. But that's just my opinion.
Cody,
No question, Democrats hands down. Now that does not mean the Republicans are innocent because they drag their feet as well.Cody,
I am not sure you want to go down this road but, Ok, then explain the more than 2700 bills Harry Reid has tabled if he is not Obstructing?I think we have had this fight already. I've already listed my reasons. You then attempt to engage in circular logic. Around and round we go until we get tired of it and fight about something else.
That is why I knew you did not want to go down this road again.because there is no excuse no matter how hard you try and make excuses or try and spin it. Reid blocks bills from being discussed or voted on, period
Yes, because the GOP offers up really bad bills. Would it be easier for you if the Senate just voted them all down?
Actually, do me a favor.....give some bill numbers that you want me to look at. Then we can discuss.
Cody,
I will make this real easy on that continued bogus argument.
President Obama set forth a budget that was discussed and voted on. Two years in a row not one single solitary Democrat voted for it, in fact nobody has voted it in two years, a big goose egg.
The Republicans come back five different budget proposals, all of which Harry Reid tabled. Now you could say that they were bad bills if you choose, then what would you call a Bill offered up by the President that gets no votes? Seems to me that would be a really bad bill that wasted time. But it least it was discussed. The other five bills were not even discussed. Perhaps if they were one of them could've come to fruition. Compromise could have been struck, but will never know since one person table them.
By the way one of those bills was backed by economists that believed if it was followed the budget would've been balanced in five years and the deficit paid off 10 years later. Of course 15 year projections are nothing more than guesswork since we don't know what's coming down the road.
Oh no.
Harry Reid stated he was going to block Republican bills. Openly.What are some of the REALLY BAD BILLS that the GOP has offered up. I see that the fact that Harry Reid summarily dismisses bills and blocks them before he even GETS them, as a far worse form of crime.
Where the heck does he get off saying, 'We're not going to pass a budget this year'? For more than 1000 days there has been no budget, just CR.I would, It would show that the House has offered up more than one bill. The American people watch a leader who is NOT chastising his Senate leader for blocking bills.
I've been down that same circular road with him. Waste of time.
You haven't been down this road with me because you never answered the question. You just come back and spend it or change the story. So I give you a chance too, what would you call a person that tables 2700+ bills?
So show me the bill number? I would be interested in getting into specifics. Anyone can make an argument in generalities. What if the GOP put a provision into the bill saying that Eric Cantor gets to kick Harry Reid's puppy every Wednesday? I would table that too. We won't know until we get the specifics.
Cody,
OK now you are just spinning. You know nobody can put a provision in a bill once it gets tabled, it is dead at that point.
"We won't know until we get the specifics."
IT takes a debate on the floor to get the specifics, unless you are Pelosi and you have to pass it to see what's in it. Then again, cannot pass it if it gets tabledSo your saying you have no idea why Harry Reid tabled those bills?
I know exactly why he does it, you say they are bad bills, show us a bad bill.
"Ha! Classic deflection." I do know why, shame you cannot admit it. But what can one expect,you merely assume and follow blindly. I notice you still have not shown a bad bill. If that's all Republicans do is submit bad bills, it should be real easy for you to cite one.
A bill so bad even the GOP couldn't believe it..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/1 … tury-ideashttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … e-abortion
It's not rape unless there is force involved according to the GOP.
The first link is taken so out of context one does not know where to start.
Of course the Republican bill was against the high speed rail, and they were right. The California bill that just passed is a rail to no where at a cost of 68 billion dollars, more than 10 times the original Democrat estimate and that was the Republican prediction at the time.
Use better updated sources BTW since the transportation bill has already passed, and try to use a real source, not someones blog or opinion. I can show you opinions all day long that agree with me, does not make us right.Motherjones, Really? Could you use a more slanted source?
Well nothing like using a 2 year old story. Of course if you kept up with it 2 years ago you would already know it was a bogus story back then but despite that let me include for you for future use the definition of Rape, I do believe I see the word FORCE in the definition. Webster was the source in case you want to look it up
rape/rāp/
Noun:
The crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him, esp. by the threat or use of violence.Ok I am a sucker, I admit it, otherwise why else would I ask the following question.
OK Cody, Show me how you can make me do something I refuse to do without using force on me.Read about the Jerry Sandusky case, or the rape cases in the Catholic church. These kids aren't physically forced to do anything. It's fear that makes them comply with what these authority figures want them to do.
The attempt to redefine rape by the Republican house was particularly despicable. Their purpose in doing so was to further restrict the exceptions for abortions funded by Medicaid. As it currently stands (because their effort failed), a 14-year-old who is impregnated by a 24-year-old could get a Medicaid-funded abortion. If their redefinition of rape had been adopted, she could not get a Medicaid-funded abortion unless she could demonstrate that she physically and forcibly resisted.
Cody,
We have have some very good discussions in the short time we know each other. We do not often agree and that is fine. I would be remiss if I did not say you are better than those last two links you used and a whole lot smarter than that last comment.
I know you are better than thatCody,
You are proving my point. Being forced is not just about being physical. There are many ways to impose force on a person to do something they do not want to do. The Jerry Sandusky case is just one of those cases. Fear, as you put it, is how they were forced. The fear of not pleasing their coach, their mentor.You are right, AV, but that is not what their proposed law meant by adding "forcible" to the term "rape." By definition, isn't all rape forced? So why add the word "forcible"? They did it for one reason only, to try and limit the number of abortions.
"Pregnancies resulting from statutory rape, in women who were raped while drugged or extremely intoxicated, in mentally incapable women, or in many of the victims of date rape would not be covered under this narrow definition."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics … als/17879/But that wasn't your point at all. You were trying to tell me that it isn't rape unless someone is physically forced to do something.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/98570?p … ost2110643
I think that was the thread that contained our exchange. I didn't read through the whole thing again, but if I recall, it was your contention that Harry Reid invoked cloture on those bills because he was hiding something. I provided evidence that Harry Reid's cloture votes were a mechanism for determining vote count, one that is used by both parties.
I also pointed out that it's very hard to hide something in a bill when all bills are readily available online. If I recall, that is when you stopped responding.
If I recall.
"it's very hard to hide something in a bill when all bills are readily available online"
But, something like the healthcare bill should have been available online and I believe we were told that it would be available online 72 hours before a vote took place. As it was, no senators, only staff and lobbyists had read the bill before voting.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were only so long, Constitution a page. What is the reason for the length of the healthcare bill? To hide something comes to mind; If legislators hadn't seen the bill, all 2000-some pages of it, American citizens who tried wouldn't make it much past 500 pages. So, stuff it in the back and NOONE will see it, not Congress, not citizens, NOT NOBODY!Teamrn, let's put to rest this silly idea that every senator should read every word of every bill before it is voted upon. It is simply not possible. Senators have staff for a reason, staff who's job it is to read and interpret bills. In fact, those staff are probably better at it than most senators ever would be.
In the same way that a CEO doesn't read every report produced by his own company, a senator or representative often doesn't even read every word of bills they themselves introduce. CEOs hire people for their ability to produce those reports and report back to the CEO what is in them. Same with senators.
In fact, my boss doesn't read everything that comes through our office. I'm the one who takes the time to decipher it and provide him with a summary.
This is how the working world works. Surely, you know that?The fact is the American People deserve better accountability than that.
Because they won't but if I complain about it it becomes my fault I didn't read it.
The people weren't represented properly or fairly.
I can promise the whole you have to pass it to know what's in it will haunt the Party forever because that statement is a lie.Yes, that statement by Nancy Pelosi was pretty dumb. However, if you are being honest, you will acknowledge that what she meant is that people who don't spend their lives glued to the politics of Washington (in other words, the average American citizen) will begin to know what's in the bill once it starts to affect their daily lives.
As for taking you to task for not reading it, I don't agree with that at all. I haven't read it, either, and I never will. I don't think it is realistic or even productive for average citizens to spend their time reading congressional law. It is more productive to find a credible source who summarizes it and interprets the law, recognizing that there might be disagreement among credible and well-meaning experts as to the final interpretation and effect.
Edited to add: A senator is still accountable even if they don't read the law and rely on their staff to do it, just as a CEO is still accountable if his staff bungles a report.
PP
"Teamrn, let's put to rest this silly idea that every senator should read every word of every bill before it is voted upon."
I cannot believe you just said that. So you are OK with pass it to see what's inside it. These guys in Congress not doing their job like reading the bill is part of our problems. I read the bills, there is no excuse for congressmen not to read them.
As CEO of Metroplex Development in Texas, As a LT in FDNY, it was my job to read everything and I did so. If your boss is not reading reports, he is a lousy administrator
PP,
" I also pointed out that it's very hard to hide something in a bill when all bills are readily available online."
Yet you did not know about cloture being invoked or about the tax increase on businesses. Why not, it was readily available.
Reid invokes cloture for more than one reason, but they all come back to they do not want to discuss or debate the bills on the floor. the rusult are bills and regulations like Obamacare. Cloture is not a mechanism to count votes nor did you provide anything to say that.I knew about cloture being invoked; I'm not sure what you mean about the tax increase on businesses. No, I don't read every bill available online, but if I had wanted to, the information would be readily available, which is contrary to your assertion that Harry Reid wants to keep secrets.
I know I provided a link explaining how the cloture vote is used and why, but I don't remember if it was in that thread.PP,
You just do not understand the PROPER usage of cloture and why it is being abused by Reid. Until you are willing to see it, you will never understand. and we are wasting our time.
As for the taxes, that was a bill we were using as the point. The bill came to the floor for its first reading, Reid invoked cloture immediately. He did so that the tax increase on small businesses could not be debated.
Cody, WHY are you concerned about how far to the right the GOP is willing to go, when you and I have a FAR left president and left wing Senate and television news media (except for FOX) is left wing in the tank?
You say "at this point, I'm much more concerned about how far to the right the GOP is willing to go. " in relation to what?
I'm concerned that places where most Americans get their news, the networks are all giving out the liberal drivel and talking points, rather than the NEWS. Where is your concern for this unbalance, that the majority of American newswathcers get their news from unreliable sources? from entertainment shows?The factual truth is that There is no significant far left presence in America, the socialist party receives 0.01% of the vote and Obama is actually a right wing candidate on a global scale, if he were to run in most developed countries he would be considered very right right wing, the most leftist thing he has passed is healthcare and even the right wing candidates and parties support that in most developed countries. The truth is the US is one of the most right wing countries in the world, almost certainly the most far right democratic one.
What?
WHAT?
Josak that's just silly. There's is most assuredly a far left presence in the US.
I posted videos on another forum of some of them.....of course I am sure you didn't look at at that.I said no significant presence, the socialist party receives hardly any votes and there is no communist party that runs. Have you traveled much? In South America and Asia Obama would be dismissed as a far right candidate and would get almost no vote, in Europe he would be further to the right than most right wing parties.
Nope....no leftists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVdYHUeamRkYou don't call redistributing the wealth as in "a Robin Hood tax" far left, close to socialism? It sure isn't far right, and it's not centrist.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT? No far left wingers? I'll watch your your tube video and raise you one. I've always said I'm not one of those, 'my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.; people. However, that's just what I am right now. There IS a left wing, and far left wing. What do you think Barack Obama and Rachel Maddow are? Obama is no moderate conservative!
How come there is no communist party? How come the socialist party receives 0.01% of the vote? Obama would be considered a right winger in most countries. In south America and Asia he would be considered a radical right winger and a fringe politician on the right, in Europe he would just be considered a right winger.
Don't forget Josak. Most people cannot leave their tiny bubble when making comparisons of different political beliefs!
Josak,
"Obama would be considered a right winger in most countries." We're not talking about most countries. The country of discussion is the USA and by OUR standards he is a very liberal Democrat. Is hair splitting your profession?No see that's not right, political position is not just an American scale, it's a global one, communism is the far left, there are nearly no communists in America, full stop, socialism is leftist, the socialist party receives 0.01% of the vote, the US is increasingly being left behind as a very right wing nation.
it's not splitting hairs, if most of the world considers Obama right wing it is downright ridiculous to call him far left.On a global scale, he's left. On a national scale, he's FAR left.
That's my opinion. Your opinion is that he's not. Please not to state it like it's fact. It's your opinion that he's not.
No it's a fact that he is not, quantifiable areas like community support initiatives, free education, corporate limitations etc. But it's more fundamental than that, just for starters two thirds of he worlds population lives in socialist or communist systems (nominally) Obama is not even close to suggesting government ownership of the means of production so it's a simple fact that Obama is further to the right than 2 thirds of the worlds population average right off the bat.
Then we have the fact that western Europe in universally further to the left in social terms and economically with higher tax rates, more human investment and things like free university education. Obama brought nationalized healthcare to the US, to all of the worlds industrialized nations that is something they did ages go.
From a simple factual and absolute perspective Obama is very much right wing on a global scale. The fact that people think otherwise just shows their manifest ignorance of the rest of the world.Further the following site is political compass .org it is run by a group of political scientists and economists here is their perspective on the Obama positioning in a nice helpful graph.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
Sarah Palin is a MEMBER of the GOP, but not THE VOICE OF THE GOP. She's not in government at all, so to equate her and mention her in the same sentence as the GOP policy is somewhat disingenuous,
Yes, I do. That is like saying that Rush Limbaugh is the voice of the GOP when nothing could be further from the truth.
And I bet the Tea Party doesn't represent the views of the GOP either?
Cody,
What each person in the Tea Party person believes outside of why the party was founded is irrelevant. The Tea Party only has one issue, fiscal responsibility. That is why not every Republican can be a Tea Party member.Yes, I'll bet the qualifications are very strict! From what I've seen on TV, proper spelling when making protest posters isn't one of them.
Some of the folks in the Tea Party are Democrats.
Who, the Tea Party itself or the democrats you claim are in it? If you are referring to the democrats, then how do you know this if they don't admit it?
One in ten or ten out of ten, regardless it answered the question and the answer was YES. Sorry you did not like the truth.
But it also shows why we have a spending problem, "oh its just"....
Dems say "oh it's just" when they want to add spending and then they say "oh it's just" when someone wants to make cuts Dems blow them off as to small to make a difference so let's not make them.So if I told you that one in ten people liked Obamacare it would be proof that people liked the new law?
Cool, so I'm glad to see that everyone is on board.
Oh of curse not.
First thing I will get is"Where are your facts?"
Then I will be told I need to go read something or other because I am ignorant.
Then I will be called a racist and be told to quit calling others names.
That's what the weekend was like.
Cody, actually, the tea party represents the views of the Tea Party, There;s a resemblance to the Republican party and more members of the Tea Party are Republican than Independet or Democrat. The Tea Party aligns itself pretty strictly behind the premises of the Constitution.
Well...
For one, the "Tea Party" isn't actually a party as opposed to being a far-right wing of the GOP.
Secondly, how does Rand Paul come out and say that the Supreme Court's decision doesn't make Obamacare Constitutional if the Constitution says that the Supreme Court is the highest court in America?I've got to say that's a pretty circuitous statement. And what does Rand Paul have to do with the price of tea in China-or this discussion?I'm really not sure why we're discussing the Obamacare decision, here, but I'll take a stab at answering what I think you meant.
Yes, the Supreme Court is the court in the land that is to interpret the Constitution. No more, no less. No policy, no legislation. The Supreme Court spoke and we need to accept it's decision. But in the same token, people don't have to agree with the decision that was handed down.
However, they cannot disobey the 'verdict' that was handed down. It is law. Unfortunately, IMHO, someone felt that the SCOTUS had taken a beating when it rendered that decision to elect Bush not Gore in 2004. And that someone needed to give the SCOTUS back it's reputation. That is not sticking to the facts of the Consitution. That is called playing politics and the SCOTUS is to be above that.
'Tea Party' isn't a party; it's short for the Tea Party patriots and they aren't far right wingers. Far right wingers are Skinheads in some areas. Tea Party Patriots want strict adherence to the Constitution.
Wanting strict adherence to the Constitution should be lauded. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to demonize what this country was founded on.1) Bush v Gore was 2000
2) Rand Paul said that the SC ruling that the law was constitutional didn't make the law constitutional. Last I checked, he was a Tea Party favorite.
3) You're right, the Tea Party isn't a party. So why did you claim that they were in your previous statement?
4) I think the Constitution is great, unfortunately, most in the Tea Party don't.
AV, hmmmm. If Pres Obama were not a Democrat, he'd still be who he is and in my mind, the problem is WHO HE IS. Not cut out for the presidency and I question if he's cut out for politics at all. I think we can all attest to his being a good husband and wonderful father, but we didn't elect a FATHER in chief.
This country is in deep doggy do and needs someone, REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT, PURPLE, DEMOCRAT, MARTIAN to get us out. IMHO, it matters little if the person who occupies the WH is one of the above; what matters is if he/she can deliver us from what appears to be the road to hell. I strongly believe that that person is NOT Barack Obama; rather Mitt Romney.Democrat or republican, I don't care what you claim to be. If you know what you're doing, and stick to your word, I'll vote for you. By classifying people with the different political races we're only splitting our country which has proven to be harmful towards our growth multiple times. If I were able to change what goes on, I'd make it so there's no political parties so that people vote for the candidates that are FIT to run the country, not just because they're democrat or republican..
Related Discussions
- 37
For Conservatives Only, Is the Democratic Party GOOD for America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 17 months ago
The Democratic Party have institutionalized socioeconomic policies which are the detriment to America such as welfare & a governmental health program known as Obamacare. Because of the Democratic Party, we have generational welfare which the onus of tax is on the middle...
- 26
Lincoln Freed The Slaves. Why do Blacks generally vote Democrat?
by Charles James 17 months ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come about?
- 77
Why is the left okay with racial slurs against Senator Tim Scott?
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
- 175
What Democrats Have Taught Me About Losing an Election
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
- 54
So, how did conservatives get this radical?
by Credence2 10 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
- 36
If Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, would you have voted for him?
by T_Augustus 13 years ago
If Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, would you have voted for him?Very curious what an HONEST answer would be from both Republicans and Democrats alike...the operative word is "honest".