He fed the public what they wanted to hear. They bought it due to their dislike of the previous administration. He's not a fraud. He's just a person that doesn't follow through with his promises that people were gullible enough to believe. He led people to believe he was something different, when he was little more than the same old thing. It's certainly a disappointing revelation for a nation who wanted to believe he was something bigger than that.

How disappointing for his upcoming 2-month anniversary of being in charge.

right he hasn't been able to push through a bill to help stave off IMO a massive depression. He hasn't moved to shut down Gitmo. He hasn't engaged foreign countries in a new light. He hasn't done anything in the few years he's been in office.

Whether you agree with his moves or not, to say he's done nothing he's promised INCLUDING the cutting of taxes on people, is just partisan BS in the hopes that you can spin some crap together that people will bite a hold of.

Now, should the stimulus bill (and future spending I am sure) fall flat, not help, or cause some of that scary inflation people are afraid is on the back end of that...or he be unable to trim the budget in the years that he just stated, or he leave our troops in Iraq until 2015....then you can bitch. However, your bitching now means that future bitching that wouldve had legs to stand on, will look like a partisan hack who never was willing to come together with those he is pointing the finger at as saying, "See, he couldnt get us to come together."

At least youre consistent in all of the POL threads you visit. Entertaining? perhaps. Silly? absolutely. although I am absolutely certain people categorize me in the same way.

On the otherhand Im certain youre against the populism cries regarding the homeowner bailout/bailout and its vast unfairness? Santelli was a liar right?

:rolleyes:

You often leave me speechless with your posts and wondering if you are serious. The fact that you have come to this conclusion, one month into a four year term, should tell everyone (particularly you) that you are completely and utterly unwilling to give the man a chance to do his job.

He doesn't follow through on his promises? Disappointing a nation who wanted to believe he was something bigger? Seriously? After one month, you feel like you gave him a fair shake and came up with that conclusion?

Now, I don't have a problem with the fact that you never liked him or gave him a chance, but do you really find it necessary to feign surprise and/or disappointment? You would have a little bit of credibility if you just took the position that you do not like him or his policies, but the sweeping conclusions, on behalf of the nation, are ridiculous.

Are you ready to fire the Chiefs new coach yet? He's been on the job for a couple of weeks now and you guys haven't won a game yet and none of his draft picks seem to be producing.

If you believe your Chiefs comparison is even remotely similar, we have little to discuss.

As Katy Couric so correctly phrased in her question to Rep. Bohner last night......

(paraphrased) "Rep. Bonner, 62% of Americans believe that the Republicans are using partisan politics in their resistance against the stimulus bill. Will the Republicans work with the Democrats and the administration and anger their party base or continue to provide political resistance to the Democrats and anger an entire nation?"

Fabulous, Katy. Just fabulous.

"LIsten to me, I have the facts. PS3 will one day kick X-box's fanny. "

I get it Mizzou, Obama is a liar and a disappointment, and he's incapable of running the country. He hasn't changed what has been years of beauracracy in less than two months. He hasn't solved the economic crisis in a matter of minutes. He doesn't walk on water and Superman could probably kick his ass. We get it.

I just want to thank you though, being a moderate that I am, that you brighten my day everytime you post stuff like this. I'm sure you are a good guy, I could sit and have a beer with you, but I will never understand your logic or your sources. So I'll just read your posts and chuckle.

so that 62% is right or not right?

You shouldn't put quotes around something you've paraphrased. It implies an accuracy that isn't there.

The Chiefs comparison is only slightly more ridiculous than your sweeping conclusions. But, realistically, I think it is time to declare the post-Chase Daniel era of Missouri football a failure since the Tigers have not won a single game since he left.

And, really? We get it. Katie Couric. Liberal media. Agenda. Blah. Blah.

yet he posted a link to a hotair blog and something from the Cato institute...it's laughable or he must want to live in a box where only conservative doctrine, talking points, blogs, etc. are allowed in and all the rest of 'em (y'know those that disagree with his opinions) should be eradicated from the world :)

Probably? Sounds like another Obama lover to me ;)

SI

It's kind of like an Obama campaign promise in that regard.

Hey-O!

You rang?

I haven't even seen whatever you're talking about since it's not on my current page view, but I suddenly felt very talked about and I was drawn to the quote above.

Interesting that you mention you are a moderate. I am too, which usually means I disagree with both sides most of the time. The false assumption is often made that because I'm so unhappy with Obama's hypocrisy and failed promises that I'm somehow happy with the current Republican leadership. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I still completely and totally fail at understanding why anyone would want to live in such a world.

You made me laugh out loud with this little post. Ty Jon.

Yes, you are clearly a moderate.

You are definitely not someone who would pretend to be impartial and then throw a lot of very slanted and biased views out there.

Not at all.

SI

Yes, it's unthinkable to believe that a person who believes that the liberal politicians have it all wrong also thinks that their Republican counterparts are just as f'd in the head.

The Republicans deserve every bit of the criticism they receive around their hypocrisy. They'd love to play the sympathy and valiant resistance card, but it falls on deaf ear relatively speaking.

I would have loved to have seen whether McCain would have followed through with his 'no earmarks' promise or if he would have also failed to keep his campaign promises like Obama once in office. The optimist in me wants to believe he would have hacked bills to pieces, but the realist in me paints a more somber picture.

Maybe you would have ended up giving him more than a month or two?

Same problem I have figuring out why anyone actually wants liberals around except maybe as a irrelevant curiosity, kind of like a garden gnome or something.

I mean, as long as you don't allow them near anything that actually matters then there's not much harm done but I don't really want garden gnomes being used as a vital cog in some piece of machinery they clearly aren't suited for either.

Disliking both the democrats and republicans doesn't make you a moderate. Nearly everything I've seen you post is on the right side of the political spectrum.

Just putting a couple of posts together to see how they look. Nothing more.

SI

Absolutely. Fiscally, I'm a conservative. In regards to morals, I'm very liberal.


There's not a lot to talk about on the Republican end. They're not of much consequence right now. Also, most of the political talk on the board is financial, where I lie on the conservative side. Jon and I would battle all day if we switched to moral/social discussion.

If I had a dime for every time a beaker said something and also nothing at all.........

Well, there have been plenty of social politics threads that I've seen, and I can't remember seeing you post in them. *shurg*

-There was a heavy duty gay marriage discussion. I was in favor of gay marriage.

-I'm in favor of legalized marijuana, though I never would use it myself.

-I'm pro-abortion.

-I'm against the religious establishment. They annoy the hell out of me.

FWIW.....I was raised in a conservative household that held none of the above beliefs. Somehow, I emerged just the opposite from a social perspective.

who the F is Pro-abortion....seriously...pro-choice, its picky but important and somewhat silly.

Aren't you happy about the Obama tax relief and him not cutting off the bush tax cuts?

I let my soapbox get a little lonely:

The DC Voting Rights Bill passed the house and passed a point of order today. Tomorrow is likely to be the vote in the Senate.

Two Senators made wild claims today. One that she would introduce a Constitutional Amendment for DC Voting Rights today, and the other that he would introduce a bill abolishing federal income taxes to residents of the district.

I can totally get behind a Constitutional ammendment -- however, as I have said on this board before, I don't think it's likely to pass and that doesn't mean it shouldn't -- there is just absolutely no incentive for States to even take time considering it. They should care, but when it affects your constituency in no appreciable way, why bother? Even if it's the right thing to do.

As for removing federal taxes, of course, that would be fantastic on a personal level. :) However, it's really rather insulting coming from a Republican like that. I see it as intending to make fun of the entire situation. And, if by some bizarre circumstance such a bill passed, the District would quickly surpass it's once peak citizenship number (near 1mil residents).

Pro-choice is a PC way of getting around saying 'abortion'. Let's not sugar-coat things.

The 'tax relief' was mostly fluff and not direct tax relief as has been cited by numerous sources referencing the asterisk on Obama's website. I'm happy that the Bush tax cuts are still in place at this point, but don't expect them to last long. I'll count my blessings for now.

Well I am pro-choice and not for abortion.

No it's not.

The key word is "choice". I want a woman to have the option to keep the child, abort the fetus, put the child up for adoption, or whatever. That's what it means to be "pro-choice". Both in reality and in semantics.

I was seeing all the talk about the DC bill and thought about you the other day, ls. Are you going to have to change your license plates if it passes ;)

SI

I don't expect the test to come quite yet. However, how long do you think he and the Dems have?

I'll echo this. I would hope abortion isn't the choice that is made, but I support the choice. Being pro-choice does not necessarily make you pro-abortion. Equating the two prolongs the argument since it causes people to argue against positions not taken.

I would love to be able to change it! :) FWIW, my preference is to go the route of an amendment, but I'll take a law of questionable constitutionality if that's all I can get. :cool:

I would love to have these plates:



But I need a car to put them on, first. ;)

Although I've often made that same clarification over the years for the same reason, personally these days ... Well if I didn't think our current adoption system was so busted then I'd personally swing back toward that pro-choice-not-pro-abortion scenario you describe. As is though, I think you could fairly call me pro-abortion in certain situations.

Interesting...Let me try...I support the right of someone to choose to kill another person, but I certainly hope they don't make that choice.

different definition of what constitutes a "person" and one that you or I will never compromise on so, again, policy-making based on religion is a no go in the USA, or shouldnt be. Thank God for science.

You're okay with Sharia law in other countries?

How about mandatory abortion? :)

Not a bad idea. Make people prove a reliable source of income and make sure they have an IQ of 90 or above before issuing a breeding permit.

Yeah that Eugenics thing is always a great idea...

Call it passive eugenics.

I have long advocated mandatory sterilization instead, heads the issue off at the pass so to speak.

I think was the thread with the Bobby Jindal sidebar. I happened across a quote that, at least as a soundbite, I bet the "Republicans have lost their way on holding down spending" folks would love. So I share it here:

"To come up in this moment in history with a stale, 'Government is the problem, you can't trust the federal government' is just a disaster for the Republican Party," Brooks said on PBS'"The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.""It's not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is."

Lol. I suppose the inference is a person with religious convictions and science are mutually exclusive.

If I were a Muslim, I suppose I'd probably be fine with Sharia law...guess I wouldn't have much of a choice, would I?

LOL

nope but thankfully we live in a sectarian country where you do have choice so becuase it isn't a Christian country Christianity shouldnt be pushed on everyone in a government setting (ie. prayer in school to any faith or deity). Faith and Science on some topics ARE mutually exclusive when they come to different conclusions, for example, evolution.

Oooo, can I play?

I support the right of the government and the church to tell someone exactly what they can and can't do to their own body, and I certainly hope that person is OK with that.

The GOP: Believing that the government shouldn't tell you what to do with your money, but can tell you everything about what you can and can't do with your body, since at least 1973.