|
|
| Re: Liberalism and the Future (946154) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (946598) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 3 22:44:02 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 3 22:07:11 2012. So were the teabaggers ... and? |
|
|
| (946601) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Sun Jun 3 22:50:48 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 3 22:07:11 2012. Do you think Romney will "fix things"? |
|
|
| (946613) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 3 23:30:30 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by JayMan on Sun Jun 3 22:50:48 2012. That hardly answers my question. The current president was hired to do that and has failed miserably. I wouldn't vote for Romney if I didn't think he would do better. Now, would you care to answer my question? |
|
|
| (946625) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Sun Jun 3 23:47:02 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 3 23:30:30 2012. Fair enough answer. Of course, I'd argue that you're likely wrong, but at least your consistent there.The reality of the situation is all a matter of expectations. I seriously doubt anyone could do much better than Obama in the current situation. Obama is playing the best game he can with a really shitty hand. There are deep structural (demographic) problems built into the economy, and there are things that threaten the economy that are beyond Obama's control (Europe). The things that theoretically could be done to truly fix thing would neither be immediate nor are possible politically (such as admitting anything from HBD). I'm not even sure an infrastructure stimulus could help. There is little by way of fixing the problems at this point, but I can tell you for damn sure that there is no way Romney will help. |
|
|
| (946643) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 00:34:32 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by JayMan on Sun Jun 3 23:47:02 2012. That would be the answer that I'd expect from a liberal simpleton. Make the facts fit the answer. obama is failing miserably so your answer is that he's doing the best he can and no one could have done better? That's a pile of manure. Had he been a leader instead of a divider then he could have built a workable consensus in congress and got things done. Even with 2 years with a majority in both houses, this divider has not even been able to get a budget passed. The man is a failure. I venture to say that if you gave your boss the same results, you'd be out on your ass - no questions asked. |
|
|
| (946644) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 00:35:52 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 00:34:32 2012. Nobody can build a consensus in Congress. He should have been a divider and not a uniter. Compromise is for losers. His attempts at compromise were his undoing. |
|
|
| (946646) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 00:43:38 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 00:35:52 2012. Exactly ... and taking it thoroughly OTchat, he should send in the Seals, take out the republicans, and get some shit done. :) |
|
|
| (946647) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 00:46:27 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 00:35:52 2012. Clinton did it. In fact, I cannot remember a president in my time with a worse record in congress. This guy is a total failure. |
|
|
| (946654) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jun 4 01:20:54 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 00:34:32 2012. yup and your republican congress had absolutely nothing to do with it..they just innocently blocked every piece of legislation that could help with the rebuilding effort..something that would have never been needed if it wasnt for THE REPUBLICANS in the first place...who took a surplus and turned it into a shortfall..who are NOW WHINING about how bad the country is doing..while doing NOTHING to help in its recovery!Nothing to do with common sense..but out of evil spite..mean spirited..greedy bastards with a mad on for the guy living at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. |
|
|
| (946655) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 4 01:26:47 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 00:34:32 2012. Make the facts fit the answerExcept they can't. There's always a gaping fallacy. |
|
|
| (946656) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 01:28:35 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 4 01:26:47 2012. So then let's elect the bishop and we can all wait for the rapture in Missouri. :) |
|
|
| (946658) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 01:32:34 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jun 4 01:20:54 2012. There was no Republican Congress for the first 2 years of the O'Bummer administration. The guy had both houses and still couldn't get anything done. At least Clinton worked with Congress and had time to knock off a piece of ass on his breaks. |
|
|
| (946660) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 01:37:11 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 4 01:26:47 2012. "Religion is the opiate of the masses." according to Marx and the two upstate lemmings seem to be smoking the shit non-stop. As you can see the lemming liberal is now harping on the religion again. Of course if the Republican Candidate were Jewish he'd have only "nice" things to say about Jews. |
|
|
| (946662) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 01:39:22 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 01:37:11 2012. Romney isn't JUST a Mormon. He's a BISHOP ... I would object every bit as much to a Rabbi or a Catholic Priest running the country, so get over yourself. |
|
|
| (946663) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 02:38:26 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 01:37:11 2012. Qualifications for the Office of PresidentAge and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951 No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. No where in the constitution of the United States does it say that a Bishop, a Rabbi, a Priest or a Minister, who is otherwise qualified under Article II section I and under the 22nd Amendment, shall not be qualified because of their religious beliefs. The founding fathers never saw fit to preclude a man of the cloth from becoming president yet there are some here who act as though it should be grounds for immediate disqualification. And yet in their protestations, there is their usual extremist liberal hypocrisy. So Mitt Romney should be disqualified because he was or is a Bishop in his church? Where were these same protestations in 1988 when Reverend Jesse Jackson ran for president for a second time? Where were the protestations from the extremist liberals when Reverend Al Sharpton ran for president in 2004 and again in 2008? How was Romney's faith a negative factor during his time as Governor. The extremist liberals desperation is becoming more and more evident as it becomes increasingly clear that president obama is not guaranteed a second term as president. This uncertainty is manifesting itself in a frenzy of false ideological arguments against Romney and attacks on (his) religion. Such is the way the left plays the game. |
|
|
| (946664) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 02:40:21 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 02:38:26 2012. So then why are you guys so pissy about a Muslim in the White House then? :) |
|
|
| (946665) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 02:41:28 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 02:38:26 2012. Neither Jackson nor Sharpton had a realistic chance at winning. In any event, it's not that a religious leader can't become the president (the relevant provision is the "no religious test" clause in Article VI), but whether one should be. |
|
|
| (946666) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 02:42:50 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 02:40:21 2012. And yes, I would never vote for Jackson for President either. We're NOT electing a Pope here ... |
|
|
| (946667) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 02:43:47 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 02:41:28 2012. I think that all the protestations about Obama being a Muslim and all the Reverend Wright crap already shows what bullshit he's throwing here. |
|
|
| (946669) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 02:47:30 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 02:41:28 2012. Their chances of winning should not be an issue. Or are you going to wait until a person is polling strongly and then say "Rabbi, we're sorry but since a substantial portion of the electorate may vote for you, we can't allow you to run because you are too Jewish". Is that how you would have it work? Your argument is a crock and a weak one at that? |
|
|
| (946673) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 4 02:53:31 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 02:41:28 2012. you dont see them as religious figures, but as civil rights leaders. |
|
|
| (946674) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 03:05:18 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 02:47:30 2012. No (since you phrased is as a question). The issue has nothing to do with polling because it was obvious neither Sharpton nor Jackson could ever be elected president. It was obvious back when I first heard of Mitt Romney that he could be the president someday. |
|
|
| (946675) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 03:06:57 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 4 02:53:31 2012. I see them as religious figures. They are not civil rights leaders. Rev. Martin Luther King was a civil rights leader.What is it with you and Dan Lawrencing? |
|
|
| (946676) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 03:08:14 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 02:47:30 2012. I suspect that a neither a Rabbi or any other religious leader would want the job. You're flailing hard trying to turn this into another of your antisemite card games. The White House is NOT a church and our founding fathers were VERY wary of religion controlling this nation.Besides, aren't you trying to elect a proper BUSINESSMAN? |
|
|
| (946679) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Mon Jun 4 05:49:14 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 4 02:53:31 2012. The great guido mind reading abilities of doucheAAA never cease to amaze me. LOLOLOLOL |
|
|
| (946686) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Mon Jun 4 06:18:07 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 03:06:57 2012. >>>>What is it with you and Dan Lawrencing? <<<<TRUE DAT |
|
|
| (946704) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 4 07:27:23 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 01:32:34 2012. Goes to show you party affiation don't work with all presidents,these so called democrats was out to get the man from the start.. |
|
|
| (946705) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 4 08:03:19 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 3 21:29:56 2012. Sure has.Government spending has been cut to its lowest level since Eisenhower was President * We all got a cut in taxes* Some of our biggest enemies have been destroyed. Illegal immigrants have been sent home in larger numbers than his predecessors. Health care issues have been addressed. Appointed 2 competent Supreme Court Justices He's not perfect but he's better than his predecessor and better than a lackluster governor who made everyone buy health insurance. your pal, Fred * lower government spending and tax cuts are things that Republicans have been clamoring for. |
|
|
| (946706) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 4 08:05:11 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 3 21:29:56 2012. I guess you think o'bummer has been a good leader?Yes i do there is room for improvement though... |
|
|
| (946707) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 4 08:11:32 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 00:46:27 2012. The Congress in the 90's was more willing to compromise. Even Newt Gingrich as Speaker wasn't a hostage taker and Bob Dole was more a horse trader than the current crop of extremists. The days of consensus are over; we're a banana republic now. There'll be reprisals for this obstructionism and to be honest, there should be.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (946739) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Mon Jun 4 10:59:02 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 00:34:32 2012. You have no idea what the problems even are. You're just going on blind faith that Romney can fix them.If we rely on semi-objective evidence, with both the track record of Republican presidents and business men turned presidents considered, it's a safe bet Obama is the better man for the job. As been pointed out to you, no one can make consensus in today's Congress. It may in fact no longer be possible since the parties are so ideologically separated. It's obvious Romney will—in addition to allowing Republican batshit to reign—steer us down a path of austerity rather than stimulus. Europe is evidence that that strategy DOES NOT WORK. No one can solve the problems we have, considering the political barriers in the way. All we can hope for is the guy who will not make it worse, or at least less worse. That man, out of the two options available, is Obama. |
|
|
| (946741) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Mon Jun 4 11:01:24 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 4 08:11:32 2012. Pretty much sums it up. |
|
|
| (946742) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 11:35:13 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 00:34:32 2012. There is little that can be done with a bunch that is determined to do nothing. The people elected President Obama and expected him to enact his agenda (although we probably would have preferred Medicare being opened to premium paying subscribers as opposed to national Nixon/Romneycare). Based on bullshit and fearmongering, the republicans took Congress in 2010, and have done nothing since. The bills the House passed for the most part deserved the quick death in the Senate, including two so-called "budgets" that would have made Europe look successful given their economic woes if implemented. |
|
|
| (946743) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Mon Jun 4 11:55:05 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 11:35:13 2012. Well said! |
|
|
| (946744) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 12:05:38 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 03:08:14 2012. Businessmen make lousy Presidents. Look at what happened with the last one...years of economic stagnation for most, insane wealth concentration for the few, war for the poor, placating the population at all economic levels (but that pesky 1% that never needs) through the accumulation of debt,until the bill comes due..... |
|
|
| (946807) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 17:27:25 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 4 03:05:18 2012. That makes no sense. By your logic we could allow illegal Mexicans to run for president until they have a chance of winning. With all due respect, you are dead wrong. |
|
|
| (946808) | |
Re: Liberalism has no Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 17:28:55 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism has no Future, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 12:05:38 2012.  |
|
|
| (946811) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 17:44:33 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 4 08:03:19 2012. Well, I humbly disagree. But then I can see how misstatements by the O'bummer administration can be confusing. For example today at a news conference, Jay Carney (press sec'y) if the economy and the poor jobs market has pres. o'bummer worried. Carney said that the president is more focused on getting people jobs than keeping his own.Meanwhile, today, the president is doing 3 fund-raisers in NYC. Now he could be generating jobs for campaigners but I'd watch what I'd be believing from the o'bummer propaganda machine. |
|
|
| (946812) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 17:45:13 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 11:35:13 2012. |
|
|
| (946817) | |
Re: Liberalism is the Future |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 18:07:11 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 17:45:13 2012. US News & World Report thinks you're the one peddling bullshit.Conservatism a/k/a "austerity" 
|
|
|
| (946822) | |
Re: Liberalism is the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 18:17:40 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism is the Future, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 18:07:11 2012. That's the trouble with you. You need other people to tell you how to think. And by the way, that's not US News and World Report. That's Peter Allen who wrote that. WHy don't you tell us who Peter Allen is and where he gets his unbiased opinions. |
|
|
| (946824) | |
Re: Liberalism is the Future |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 18:18:42 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism is the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 18:17:40 2012. Why don't you read the article and STFU? |
|
|
| (946828) | |
Re: Liberalism is the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 18:29:23 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism is the Future, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 18:18:42 2012. Why don't you answer the question? You are the one suggesting the article. Why are you so intellectually dishonest that you won't even tell people who Peter Allen is as long as he's the one doing your thinking. And please don't tell me to "Shut the fuck up". |
|
|
| (946830) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Jun 4 18:32:47 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 00:46:27 2012. The only thing he failed at was forcing the hand of Republicans...Hopefully these automatic defense cuts help them see the light of "maybe closing tax loopholes and allowing the bush cuts to expire is a good idea". |
|
|
| (946834) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 18:40:09 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Jun 4 18:32:47 2012. In 2009 and 2010 which republican hands did he have to force? Nancy Pelosi's who was the House Speaker or Harry Reid's who was the Senate Majority Leader. He had the deck stacked in his favor and still misplayed the hand he was dealt. About all he's done correctly is put out carefully crafted press releases that misstate the truth but convince his followers. Fortunately, his base is eroding and Allied Van Lines should be dropping off the packing boxes to the White House real soon. |
|
|
| (946837) | |
Re: Liberalism is the Future |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 18:46:38 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism is the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 18:29:23 2012. Why not? You treat me like that all the time. The facts in the article are spot on. Businesspeople do NOT do well running governments. They are nowhere near the same. |
|
|
| (946839) | |
Re: Liberalism is the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 18:55:28 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism is the Future, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 18:46:38 2012. Because if you tell me to "Shut the fuck up" Then I will respond in kind and then I don't get to correct your misconceptions, which I really want to do. You are so wrong, its a shame. |
|
|
| (946845) | |
Re: Liberalism is the Future |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 19:10:42 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism is the Future, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 18:55:28 2012. I don't have misconceptions. I know what the republicans are horking doesn't work. Just look at Europe, right here right now. That's what the republican economic plan will bring here, plus. They'll make Europe look successful. It's such a shame to see someone who's retired, who depends on their pension remain intact, to support policies that will ensure it isn't. |
|
|
| (946855) | |
Re: Liberalism and the Future |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 4 19:19:51 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism and the Future, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Jun 4 18:32:47 2012. No point in trying to explain it to Dumdum ... they never taught the word "filibuster" in motorcycle school. |
|
|
| (946859) | |
Re: Liberalism is the Future |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 4 19:30:26 2012, in response to Re: Liberalism is the Future, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 4 19:10:42 2012. errr, I hate to break it to you but the European economic model is exactly what o'bummer is looking to follow. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||