If you're new to politics and don't know much, you need to do more than simply watch and read information from people with such an obvious partisan slant. If you're taking Ann Coulter's words as gospel, of course you'll agree with Bill O'Reilly, and vice versa.
You need to educate yourself about both sides (from a variety of sources!) before you can decide that you don't want to hear from one or the other.
I do and I don't like the lefts ideologies.
I don't like Coulter at all but that does not mean everything she or O'reilly says is bullshit. Now if you read some articles in the NY Times, well there you will read a lot of lies and deception.
I do look into democratic policies and I think most of it is bad. I don't agree with most of what they say. I know what Obama stands for and I don't like it.
"ACORN", Goverment housing? well lets give a bunch of people who don't want to work a free place to live. AND, lets give them Goverment food, AND Goverment money. (I think its good to help Americans but not unconditionally)
They should have like two years of assistance and then they are on their own. BUT NO, the majority work the system and WE have to pay for this. NOT RIGHT. I see it and hear about it in Atlantic City all the time. I could tell you plenty of stories of people who take complete advantage of goverment help and its bullshit. My wife and I bust our ass to have a nice home and nice things, working full time jobs, I work 70 hours a week, 8 months out of the year while the people Obama wants to help are at home watching Jerry Springer and drinking cool aid that I PAID FOR!
Total bullshit.
CHANGE......wow, that is broad no? His wants to tax people who make over 250,000. Well that falls right into my business category. So you read that and think "oh he must be wealthy", not at all. A lot goes into my type of business and I only make around a quarter profit from that, but I will get taxed out the ass with his plan. AND, my families insurance is covered through my wife's company that she works for as part of her salary. Well, when they have to pay all those extra taxes, what do you think they will cut out in order to cover them????
The insurance plans will get worse and a heck of a lot thinner.
Ta hell with Obama. Change, yea for the worse maybe.
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Here is the deal with me. I am very new to politics and I admit i don't know a whole hell of a lot but I am learning. And so far what I have learned is that I don't agree with the left AT ALL. Maybe a few things like gay marriage and abortion but not much else. So because I am learning I look into political situations as much as possible to understand what is happening in our country. I am sure the dem's can find just as much info on the net then I can saying BS about the republicans but that is not my interest.
One of the reasons I like Bill O'Reilly is b/c he tells it like it is. Of course you lefters don't like him, he calls you out everytime and exposes you for who you really are.
And some of you might think that since I don't know as much as you when it comes to politics that I should not post here? Please... I will post what I think is something that people should see. Its not ment for you lefters to like it. Its to show others what your party is about....bullshit.
Bill O' cherry picks information, and distorts whatever truth might be left. He makes a lot of money doing what he does. I suspect he wouldn't do pro bono work to support the right wing.
the whole right/left thing is bullshit. It's a distraction. It's an industry in itself.
Here is the deal with me. I am very new to politics and I admit i don't know a whole hell of a lot but I am learning. And so far what I have learned is that I don't agree with the left AT ALL. Maybe a few things like gay marriage and abortion but not much else. So because I am learning I look into political situations as much as possible to understand what is happening in our country. I am sure the dem's can find just as much info on the net then I can saying BS about the republicans but that is not my interest.
One of the reasons I like Bill O'Reilly is b/c he tells it like it is. Of course you lefters don't like him, he calls you out everytime and exposes you for who you really are.
And some of you might think that since I don't know as much as you when it comes to politics that I should not post here? Please... I will post what I think is something that people should see. Its not ment for you lefters to like it. Its to show others what your party is about....bullshit.
Plenty of people post opposing views. It's all good, and encourages healthy debate. Usually much more effective and likely to gain respect when you don't make personal attacks.
I do and I don't like the lefts ideologies.
I don't like Coulter at all but that does not mean everything she or O'reilly says is bullshit. Now if you read some articles in the NY Times, well there you will read a lot of lies and deception.
I do look into democratic policies and I think most of it is bad. I don't agree with most of what they say. I know what Obama stands for and I don't like it.
"ACORN", Goverment housing? well lets give a bunch of people who don't want to work a free place to live. AND, lets give them Goverment food, AND Goverment money. (I think its good to help Americans but not unconditionally)
They should have like two years of assistance and then they are on their own. BUT NO, the majority work the system and WE have to pay for this. NOT RIGHT. I see it and hear about it in Atlantic City all the time. I could tell you plenty of stories of people who take complete advantage of goverment help and its bullshit. My wife and I bust our ass to have a nice home and nice things, working full time jobs, I work 70 hours a week, 8 months out of the year while the people Obama wants to help are at home watching Jerry Springer and drinking cool aid that I PAID FOR!
Total bullshit.
CHANGE......wow, that is broad no? His wants to tax people who make over 250,000. Well that falls right into my business category. So you read that and think "oh he must be wealthy", not at all. A lot goes into my type of business and I only make around a quarter profit from that, but I will get taxed out the ass with his plan. AND, my families insurance is covered through my wife's company that she works for as part of her salary. Well, when they have to pay all those extra taxes, what do you think they will cut out in order to cover them????
The insurance plans will get worse and a heck of a lot thinner.
Ta hell with Obama. Change, yea for the worse maybe.
...
Wait a minute. So... you DON'T make $250,000.00 annual profits? Your net is $62,500.00 in take home (1 quarter of $250,000.00)? Then, what are you complaining about? $62,500.00 is less than $250,000.00, you know? Unless your wife's income is $187,500.00 a year.
...
And if you do make over $250,000.00 a year... why don't you just BUY your own health insurance?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
the answer is in the line between the two lines you quoted from my post.
cherry picking indeed.
CNN is owned by a multinational corporation (time Warner)
if you watch them, you get the facts the way they want you to know them, not the way they are.
C-span, BBC, and possibly NPR are the only ones without bias, at least in the way the major outlets do.
It seems you are pretty smart when it comes to Politics but you are way off base when it comes to who is bias and who is not. I listen to NPR on a regular basis and I can say for sure they lean to the far far left. And CNN? Please, Time Warner goes hand in hand with the ACLU. Don't even try it.
They are completely into the secular movement.
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
IMO, the stupidest move of probably the history of modern US economics, if not world economics, was Bush's decision to up the FHA limit on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approved Jumbo loans.
He actually made this move IN RESPONSE to the subprime crisis and falling housing prices. If he had done this prior to those conditions, I might cut him some slack.
But, to actually piss turpentine on the fire the way Bush did by letting people take out bigger loans in a market already inflated to Kingdom come is just indisputable proof that the man is truly an incredibly stupid person.
I think when all of this is sorted out and anarchy/or martial law does not reign over the streets of the US, history will look back upon that decision as perhaps one of the dumbest, most foolish, ignorant, and downright assinine decisions ever made by a US President. It just goes to show how little the man really knows about economics n spite of his Ivy League business education.
It seems you are pretty smart when it comes to Politics but you are way off base when it comes to who is bias and who is not. I listen to NPR on a regular basis and I can say for sure they lean to the far far left. And CNN? Please, Time Warner goes hand in hand with the ACLU. Don't even try it.
They are completely into the secular movement.
I just don't agree. At least it's not far far left by my definition. Twice Kucinich tried to get Impeachment proceedings for Cheney. Except for Olberman, the story was completely Ignored by the "liberal" media. They are consistantly misrepresenting numbers of people at protests. reverend wright- covered ad nauseum. Reverend Hagee- ignored. the list goes on and on.
good reporting of facts is not a bias. If a republican senator goes down because he commited a crime, that's not bias. That's justice.
IF the "mainstream" media have a bias it's to money. that's a fact.
As far as I'm concerned, the media has been Bush's bitch for the last 8 years.
as for this secular "movement" you speak of, here's a wake up call. This is a secular nation. It's the way the founding fathers wanted it. In fact, they thought it was so important they made it the first 10 words of the bill of rights
I'm sure you don't agree and that's fine. That's covered in the next 11 words.
and you never see a program where everything is blamed on the right. Fox has its accusations, but nowhere in media is there an answer to that.
Olbermann's show pretty much blames everything on the right. He doesn't do it with as much outright hatred as some of the right wing radio schmucks do, but he ignores the Democrats' faults on just about everything.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
His wants to tax people who make over 250,000. Well that falls right into my business category. So you read that and think "oh he must be wealthy", not at all. A lot goes into my type of business and I only make around a quarter profit from that, but I will get taxed out the ass with his plan.
Olbermann's show pretty much blames everything on the right. He doesn't do it with as much outright hatred as some of the right wing radio schmucks do, but he ignores the Democrats' faults on just about everything.
I don't think there is a more hateful person in the media than Keith Olbermann. I would be thrilled to see Keith actually interview a Republican or someone that disagreed with him ONCE on his show. I don't think this has ever happened. During the conventions you saw his true colors when the first time he had to listen to someone disagree with him, he asked to cut his microphone (and the crazy thing was he wasn't even part of the interview). I think his head would explode with rage if he actually had to debate with someone.
My deepest apology's to the posters and readers of this thread that I have taken so long to place a follow up post. *rolls eyes*
Just to be upfront (in regards to mammasan's declaration) I am not a republican, nor a died in the wool conservative. I am an independent, have been so all my life since I registered to vote at 18. I have views that are considered far right and views and beliefs that are considered far left. I have voted for republican, democrat, independent, and green party candidates during my life time.
I fined it hysterical how seemingly every time someone espouses a view contrary to the "main stream" of this board the Rush, Hanity, and Bill'o comments are thrown insultingly at posters. Believe it or not people can have views other than your own that are based on heartfelt convictions and inner beliefs formed without listening to talking heads. And you can lump Moreen Dowd, Keith Oberman, ect.. into the same group.
The intolerance some of you have for opposing views has to some degree always astonished me and at the same time I find quite saddening because I expect more from pearl jam fans. Why? I don't know lol. I think today is the first time I have posted on the moving train in over three years.
Now that I have gotten my soliloquy out of the way lets return to the subject at hand.
As was painfully pointed out to all of us by John Murtha, Harry Reid ect.. when the dems regained power and control of both the house and senate they were and continue to be powerless in ending the war. Why?, because they did not have ab filibuster proof majority. Unless you have a filibuster proof majority you are not going to accomplish squat without bipartisan legislation. This has been the situation durring Bush's two terms for both party's.
What the OPs video clearly and quite painfully points out is that the democrats never even acknowledge any problems with either Freddie or Fannie and stood solidly in the way of any intervention, that is till the walls came crumbling down around them. And even when they regained control of the house and senate and were personally chairing these committees they did nothing. According to them, these were solid institutions that were not only doing well but had bright futures.
The democrats paint themselves as the party of the every man/woman. They stick up for and fight for our "ordinary" citizens, the little guy if you will. In the almost two years of chairing these committees and being in control of the business of both the house and the senate where were the alarm bells? Where were the hearings and investigations into this looming crises? Why were they not dragging these institutions before the congress and the American people and giving them hell? Why weren't they shouting from the Capitol steps to the citizens of this country about the corruption, book cooking, predatory lending and looming crises of these institutions?
They certainly had time to call countless hearings upon countless hearings investigating the bush administration in every facet imaginable but nothing in regards to the looming crises that with every passing month was building. Why?
Why is it that even now, after all of that has come to light, there are no calls for investigations and special prosecutors being pushed for and launched by the democrats in congress? The only current investigations that are being carried out are being done outside of congress. Why?
They will put out subpoenas for every lowly Bush aid and adviser but nothing in regards to the biggest financial disaster in our nations history. Why?
And finally why is it that I do not hear Harry Ried and Nacy Pelosi saying its all of our fault, Republicans and Democrats?
The answer to these questions is a plain as the nose on your face and thanks to the op it is before you in streaming color and in their own words.
"i do not understand this 'us' and 'them' mentality. we are ALL americans, it's OUR government, so enough with trying to splinter us further. we need things to unite us...not more divisive BS."
Truer words have never been spoken but sadly for the almost 8 years of Bushes presidency this mindset has only once been implemented by the political party's that control this country and that was during 9/11, and that lasted a few weeks at best. Since then if a rat pisses in your cornflakes it must be George Bushes fault.
Here, before us, we have a scandal that has brought our country's economy to it's knees and because the Democrats are "up to there necks in it" we are now all Americans and it is all our fault. I am by no means questioning the sincerity of the above quote by decides2dream personally just the mindset that alot of liberals are convienently adpoting after blaming Bush and the repuplicans for every thing under the sun for 8 years.
Now, please excuse me while I scurry away to consult with my pundits and personally place a call to Sean Hannity.
'
No one is saying that the Dem's hands are clean, but to place blame solely on the Democrat's shoulders as the OP and many people are doing is plain stupid. Yes the Democrats, under Clinton, pushed through legislation that relaxed the lending criteria for banks and who they can give mortgages to and they are fully responsible for that. Let's not forget though that in 2001 Teasury Secretary O'Neill spoke before Congress about the sub-prime mortgages, then again in 2005 Alan Greenspan did the same followed by Obama's report 2 years ago. For all three of those instances the Republicans had the White House and control of Congress and nothing was done. Even one of their own rank and file, Ron Paul, has been speaking about this for 20 years and they failed to react, along with the Democrats. So responsibility for this problem falls squarely on both parties' shoulders. Any one who would pick fingers at just one party, whether it be the Dems or Reps, is a fool.
To address your point about Pelosi or Reid not owning up to their party's envolvement, they are typical politicians who care about party first. The same goes for the Republicans. With the exception of a small few, like Ron Paul, no memeber from either party has stepped forward to say that their respective party fucked up.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Here is the deal with me. I am very new to politics and I admit i don't know a whole hell of a lot but I am learning. And so far what I have learned is that I don't agree with the left AT ALL. Maybe a few things like gay marriage and abortion but not much else. So because I am learning I look into political situations as much as possible to understand what is happening in our country. I am sure the dem's can find just as much info on the net then I can saying BS about the republicans but that is not my interest.
One of the reasons I like Bill O'Reilly is b/c he tells it like it is. Of course you lefters don't like him, he calls you out everytime and exposes you for who you really are.
And some of you might think that since I don't know as much as you when it comes to politics that I should not post here? Please... I will post what I think is something that people should see. Its not ment for you lefters to like it. Its to show others what your party is about....bullshit.
There is nothing wrong with not agreeing with a certain party's ideology. Hell I don't agree with either major party's ideology. The point is that hyper-partisanship of ignoring your own party's faults while only focusing on the other party's faults is what gets up, the people, fucked in the end. Any one who simply states that this is the Republicans doing is a fool, same goes for any one who thinks that it's only the Democrats faults. This was a massive failure by both parties. While the Democrats may have been responsible for pushing through legislation that relaxed lending standards, the Republicans did nothing about it when they had the majority. The Republicans in fact compounded the problem by relaxing regulation of the market. Even when experts where warning Congress of the impending meltdown neither party did shit. You may have had a Democrat here or a Republican there speaking out about it, but their respective parties failed to act.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
'
No one is saying that the Dem's hands are clean, but to place blame solely on the Democrat's shoulders as the OP and many people are doing is plain stupid. Yes the Democrats, under Clinton, pushed through legislation that relaxed the lending criteria for banks and who they can give mortgages to and they are fully responsible for that. Let's not forget though that in 2001 Teasury Secretary O'Neill spoke before Congress about the sub-prime mortgages, then again in 2005 Alan Greenspan did the same followed by Obama's report 2 years ago. For all three of those instances the Republicans had the White House and control of Congress and nothing was done. Even one of their own rank and file, Ron Paul, has been speaking about this for 20 years and they failed to react, along with the Democrats. So responsibility for this problem falls squarely on both parties' shoulders. Any one who would pick fingers at just one party, whether it be the Dems or Reps, is a fool.
To address your point about Pelosi or Reid not owning up to their party's envolvement, they are typical politicians who care about party first. The same goes for the Republicans. With the exception of a small few, like Ron Paul, no memeber from either party has stepped forward to say that their respective party fucked up.
You are completley missing my point and the facts of the matter. I think you should read my post again.
If you and ten guys build a boat together and unknowingly at the time its design is faulty. It starts leaking and every time you try and fix the leak the other guys stop you from fixing it and say its fine. Then the boat fills up with so much water that it sinks, who's fault is it that the boat sunk? Would you share responsibility with the other guys because you built a boat that eventually was going to leak or is it the other guys fault for preventing you from fixing the leak that would have kept the boat afloat?
The point is that hyper-partisanship of ignoring your own party's faults while only focusing on the other party's faults is what gets up, the people, fucked in the end.
That's why I support McCain. He acknowledges what's wrong with the Republican party. Of course, George Bush is dumbass. I don't think anyone here actually likes what he's done. No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, War in Iraq, all stupid.
The fact of the matter is, McCain IS NOT Bush, no matter how much Obama and Biden and the media want you to think that. McCain has always been traditionally criticized by the more right-wing Republicans for being too Moderate. But now that the media is brainwashing everyone, we all forget that.
Sarah Palin is not that great, but that certainly isn't changing my vote. I'm voting for MCCAIN not PALIN.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
That's why I support McCain. He acknowledges what's wrong with the Republican party. Of course, George Bush is dumbass. I don't think anyone here actually likes what he's done. No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, War in Iraq, all stupid.
The fact of the matter is, McCain IS NOT Bush, no matter how much Obama and Biden and the media want you to think that. McCain has always been traditionally criticized by the more right-wing Republicans for being too Moderate. But now that the media is brainwashing everyone, we all forget that.
Sarah Palin is not that great, but that certainly isn't changing my vote. I'm voting for MCCAIN not PALIN.
you are voting for 4 more years of the same ... like i say to all people who are picking mccain - do you think the people that are the architects of that party leave when administrations change!?? ... the only reason mccain got the nomination was because he started playing ball with the people that matter and that means agreeing with bush on everything (see record) ...
anyhoo - this is why no matter what an administration does while in power - the elections will always be close ... people aren't willing to hold people accountable ...
That's why I support McCain. He acknowledges what's wrong with the Republican party. Of course, George Bush is dumbass. I don't think anyone here actually likes what he's done. No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, War in Iraq, all stupid.
The fact of the matter is, McCain IS NOT Bush, no matter how much Obama and Biden and the media want you to think that. McCain has always been traditionally criticized by the more right-wing Republicans for being too Moderate. But now that the media is brainwashing everyone, we all forget that.
Sarah Palin is not that great, but that certainly isn't changing my vote. I'm voting for MCCAIN not PALIN.
If we where talking about McCain back in 2000 I would agree with you in a heart beat, but not with the McCain today. he seems to have sold himself out to get to the Oval Office and he has sided with the Bush administration over 90% of the time. The McCain today is not the Maverick from 8 years ago. I don't need the media, Obama or Biden to tell me that. i just have to look at his voting record. To me the only saving grace he his VP pick and he dropped the ball on that one. He choose someone who has the same views of the VP as Cheney.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
That's why I support McCain. He acknowledges what's wrong with the Republican party. Of course, George Bush is dumbass. I don't think anyone here actually likes what he's done. No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, War in Iraq, all stupid.
The fact of the matter is, McCain IS NOT Bush, no matter how much Obama and Biden and the media want you to think that. McCain has always been traditionally criticized by the more right-wing Republicans for being too Moderate. But now that the media is brainwashing everyone, we all forget that.
The problem with this argument is that McCain DOES agree with Bush on all of the things you mentioned. He did support the Patriot Act in full. He did support No Child Left Behind. He did vote for the war in Iraq. He did vote to move troops away from Afghanistan. He has consistently voted for de-regulation of the Wall Street industry. He has consistently voted against giving tax breaks and rewards for innovation regarding alternative energy. Don't take my word for it, use ontheissues.org or the Senate website if you don't believe me. I don't think he disagrees with the Republicans 100 percent of the time, but this idea that he is a maverick is a fallacy. And on the things he did disagree with Bush on, he has changed his mind. Remember in 2003 when he opposed the Bush tax cuts? Now he supports them whole-heartedly. He just magically had a change-of-heart on all the issues that made him a maverick? Doubtful; he's moved to the right and abandoned those principles because he wants to win.
anyhoo - this is why no matter what an administration does while in power - the elections will always be close ... people aren't willing to hold people accountable ...
I'd be happy to vote the Republicans out, as soon as the Dems put up a candidate I actually agree with.
"4 more years of the same," that's some nice rhetoric. Of course, McCain has to pander to the "architects of the party" to get the nomination.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
I'd be happy to vote the Republicans out, as soon as the Dems put up a candidate I actually agree with.
"4 more years of the same," that's some nice rhetoric. Of course, McCain has to pander to the "architects of the party" to get the nomination.
i am by no means saying you should vote democrat - there are other options ...
it's the truth ... and as readily as you admit that he has to pander to these architects - what makes you think those self-serving policies are going to change?? ...
again - you've been screwed 8 years by a republican administration and you are gonna vote for them again - if that isn't rewarding their behaviour i don't know what is ...
The problem with this argument is that McCain DOES agree with Bush on all of the things you mentioned. He did support the Patriot Act in full. He did support No Child Left Behind. He did vote for the war in Iraq.
So did Obama!
And, actually, Obama has voted the same as McCain most of the time, also. Senators never really vote that differently from each other most of the time, at least the ones that actually want to move up in the political world don't. And this is not a knock against Obama, it's just the truth. Most of these people, Biden, McCain, Clinton, Obama, vote the same way at least 90% of the time. They all voted for the Patriot Act without even reading it, they all voted for No Child Left behind Act, they all voted for the War In Iraq.
And, yes, McCain has had to seriously change his outlook on certain things to get elected. When he was first nominated, hard line conservatives were very pissed off. So he's had to cater to them a little. I think he'll go back to the way he was once hes in office, just like how we would see Obama go back to the way he really is, extremely left. Both of them have had to change the way they are perceived. That's politics. Once they're in office they'll change back.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
And, actually, Obama has voted the same as McCain most of the time, also. Senators never really vote that differently from each other most of the time, at least the ones that actually want to move up in the political world don't. And this is not a knock against Obama, it's just the truth. Most of these people, Biden, McCain, Clinton, Obama, vote the same way at least 90% of the time. They all voted for the Patriot Act without even reading it, they all voted for No Child Left behind Act, they all voted for the War In Iraq.
And, yes, McCain has had to seriously change his outlook on certain things to get elected. When he was first nominated, hard line conservatives were very pissed off. So he's had to cater to them a little. I think he'll go back to the way he was once hes in office, just like how we would see Obama go back to the way he really is, extremely left. Both of them have had to change the way they are perceived. That's politics. Once they're in office they'll change back.
That is why neither of them deserve to hold the office of the Presidency.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I think he'll go back to the way he was once hes in office, just like how we would see Obama go back to the way he really is,extremely left.
i always laugh when i read this ... the democrats would be a right wing party in most countries!! ... you guys don't know left - let alone extreme left ...
i always laugh when i read this ... the democrats would be a right wing party in most countries!! ... you guys don't know left - let alone extreme left ...
Ever notice that Bill Clinton was labeled an extreme liberal. Then in 2000 Gore was the most liberal candidate for president only to have Kerry take the title in 04 and now Obama hold the title of the most liberal person to run for President. It just seems that every four years the right labels the Democratic candidate as the most liberal. Kerry was pretty liberal but Obama is definitely more Centrist.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
And, actually, Obama has voted the same as McCain most of the time, also. Senators never really vote that differently from each other most of the time, at least the ones that actually want to move up in the political world don't. And this is not a knock against Obama, it's just the truth. Most of these people, Biden, McCain, Clinton, Obama, vote the same way at least 90% of the time. They all voted for the Patriot Act without even reading it, they all voted for No Child Left behind Act, they all voted for the War In Iraq.
And, yes, McCain has had to seriously change his outlook on certain things to get elected. When he was first nominated, hard line conservatives were very pissed off. So he's had to cater to them a little. I think he'll go back to the way he was once hes in office, just like how we would see Obama go back to the way he really is, extremely left. Both of them have had to change the way they are perceived. That's politics. Once they're in office they'll change back.
Obama did not vote for any of those. Obama did not vote for the original Patriot Act or the original Iraq vote because he was in the state Senate at the time. He spoke out against both of those actions at the time whereas McCain was in lockstep with the Bush administration. Since then, Obama voted for a Patriot Act that restricted some of the more odious executive privileges awarded by the original act passed post 9/11. McCain voted for the Patriot Act to remain exactly as it was. Obama has voted for a timeline in Iraq, and McCain has not. You say Obama voted for all of these things, but that's just not true.
You're absolutely right. McCain, Clinton and Biden all voted for the Iraq war. They all voted to give the executive branch unprecedented power with the Patriot Act. Consistently, McCain has been wrong on these issues and Obama has been right on these issues. You seem to agree with Obama on these votes more than you do with McCain.
McCain's catered to them a little? Where do I begin? Abortion? He said he did not care to overturn Roe v. Wade, now he says he will appoint Supreme Court justices that will do just that. Immigration? He says that he no longer supports the paths to amnesty that he once did. Taxes? He called the Bush tax cuts "offensive" in 2003, and now wants to make them permanent. McCain has not catered them "a little"...on most of the things that differentiated himself with the Republican party, he has moved to the right, sacrificing those principles that made him such a breath of fresh air in 2000. And he has given no sign that he would "change back." Say what you want about Obama, but at least his record from the past eight years matches his rhetoric.
i always laugh when i read this ... the democrats would be a right wing party in most countries!! ... you guys don't know left - let alone extreme left ...
And you do, Mr. Holier Than Thou? I live in this world, too, you know. Anyway, why don't you "enlighten me" on what extreme left really is, then? Just so we're on the same page.
And I didn't say Democrats, I said Obama. Big difference there. The majority of Democrats are not nearly as far left as Obama.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
i always laugh when i read this ... the democrats would be a right wing party in most countries!! ... you guys don't know left - let alone extreme left ...
Sure I do. Secular Progressive ACLU. Bunch of Nut jobs who I am at complete war with.
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Comments
I don't like Coulter at all but that does not mean everything she or O'reilly says is bullshit. Now if you read some articles in the NY Times, well there you will read a lot of lies and deception.
I do look into democratic policies and I think most of it is bad. I don't agree with most of what they say. I know what Obama stands for and I don't like it.
"ACORN", Goverment housing? well lets give a bunch of people who don't want to work a free place to live. AND, lets give them Goverment food, AND Goverment money. (I think its good to help Americans but not unconditionally)
They should have like two years of assistance and then they are on their own. BUT NO, the majority work the system and WE have to pay for this. NOT RIGHT. I see it and hear about it in Atlantic City all the time. I could tell you plenty of stories of people who take complete advantage of goverment help and its bullshit. My wife and I bust our ass to have a nice home and nice things, working full time jobs, I work 70 hours a week, 8 months out of the year while the people Obama wants to help are at home watching Jerry Springer and drinking cool aid that I PAID FOR!
Total bullshit.
CHANGE......wow, that is broad no? His wants to tax people who make over 250,000. Well that falls right into my business category. So you read that and think "oh he must be wealthy", not at all. A lot goes into my type of business and I only make around a quarter profit from that, but I will get taxed out the ass with his plan. AND, my families insurance is covered through my wife's company that she works for as part of her salary. Well, when they have to pay all those extra taxes, what do you think they will cut out in order to cover them????
The insurance plans will get worse and a heck of a lot thinner.
Ta hell with Obama. Change, yea for the worse maybe.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Bill O' cherry picks information, and distorts whatever truth might be left. He makes a lot of money doing what he does. I suspect he wouldn't do pro bono work to support the right wing.
the whole right/left thing is bullshit. It's a distraction. It's an industry in itself.
you're a slave.
I'm so fucking sick of this shit.
Maybe I am.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Bill O'reilly exposes us for who we really are?
Mmmmm k.
are you kidding me?
the answer is in the line between the two lines you quoted from my post.
cherry picking indeed.
CNN is owned by a multinational corporation (time Warner)
if you watch them, you get the facts the way they want you to know them, not the way they are.
C-span, BBC, and possibly NPR are the only ones without bias, at least in the way the major outlets do.
Wait a minute. So... you DON'T make $250,000.00 annual profits? Your net is $62,500.00 in take home (1 quarter of $250,000.00)? Then, what are you complaining about? $62,500.00 is less than $250,000.00, you know? Unless your wife's income is $187,500.00 a year.
...
And if you do make over $250,000.00 a year... why don't you just BUY your own health insurance?
Hail, Hail!!!
They are completely into the secular movement.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
He actually made this move IN RESPONSE to the subprime crisis and falling housing prices. If he had done this prior to those conditions, I might cut him some slack.
But, to actually piss turpentine on the fire the way Bush did by letting people take out bigger loans in a market already inflated to Kingdom come is just indisputable proof that the man is truly an incredibly stupid person.
I think when all of this is sorted out and anarchy/or martial law does not reign over the streets of the US, history will look back upon that decision as perhaps one of the dumbest, most foolish, ignorant, and downright assinine decisions ever made by a US President. It just goes to show how little the man really knows about economics n spite of his Ivy League business education.
Thank you.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I just don't agree. At least it's not far far left by my definition. Twice Kucinich tried to get Impeachment proceedings for Cheney. Except for Olberman, the story was completely Ignored by the "liberal" media. They are consistantly misrepresenting numbers of people at protests. reverend wright- covered ad nauseum. Reverend Hagee- ignored. the list goes on and on.
good reporting of facts is not a bias. If a republican senator goes down because he commited a crime, that's not bias. That's justice.
IF the "mainstream" media have a bias it's to money. that's a fact.
As far as I'm concerned, the media has been Bush's bitch for the last 8 years.
as for this secular "movement" you speak of, here's a wake up call. This is a secular nation. It's the way the founding fathers wanted it. In fact, they thought it was so important they made it the first 10 words of the bill of rights
I'm sure you don't agree and that's fine. That's covered in the next 11 words.
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=574&False
was not repealed under reagan or bush1. did not fold under clinton.
upheld by Bush2 first and 2nd term. It collapsed under a democrat majority.
so, devised by democrats and failed on democrat watch 30 years later = democrats fault?
guys, with all due respect, that's a huge stretch and it reaks of desperation.
Olbermann's show pretty much blames everything on the right. He doesn't do it with as much outright hatred as some of the right wing radio schmucks do, but he ignores the Democrats' faults on just about everything.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
You need a better accountant.
I don't think there is a more hateful person in the media than Keith Olbermann. I would be thrilled to see Keith actually interview a Republican or someone that disagreed with him ONCE on his show. I don't think this has ever happened. During the conventions you saw his true colors when the first time he had to listen to someone disagree with him, he asked to cut his microphone (and the crazy thing was he wasn't even part of the interview). I think his head would explode with rage if he actually had to debate with someone.
No one is saying that the Dem's hands are clean, but to place blame solely on the Democrat's shoulders as the OP and many people are doing is plain stupid. Yes the Democrats, under Clinton, pushed through legislation that relaxed the lending criteria for banks and who they can give mortgages to and they are fully responsible for that. Let's not forget though that in 2001 Teasury Secretary O'Neill spoke before Congress about the sub-prime mortgages, then again in 2005 Alan Greenspan did the same followed by Obama's report 2 years ago. For all three of those instances the Republicans had the White House and control of Congress and nothing was done. Even one of their own rank and file, Ron Paul, has been speaking about this for 20 years and they failed to react, along with the Democrats. So responsibility for this problem falls squarely on both parties' shoulders. Any one who would pick fingers at just one party, whether it be the Dems or Reps, is a fool.
To address your point about Pelosi or Reid not owning up to their party's envolvement, they are typical politicians who care about party first. The same goes for the Republicans. With the exception of a small few, like Ron Paul, no memeber from either party has stepped forward to say that their respective party fucked up.
There is nothing wrong with not agreeing with a certain party's ideology. Hell I don't agree with either major party's ideology. The point is that hyper-partisanship of ignoring your own party's faults while only focusing on the other party's faults is what gets up, the people, fucked in the end. Any one who simply states that this is the Republicans doing is a fool, same goes for any one who thinks that it's only the Democrats faults. This was a massive failure by both parties. While the Democrats may have been responsible for pushing through legislation that relaxed lending standards, the Republicans did nothing about it when they had the majority. The Republicans in fact compounded the problem by relaxing regulation of the market. Even when experts where warning Congress of the impending meltdown neither party did shit. You may have had a Democrat here or a Republican there speaking out about it, but their respective parties failed to act.
You are completley missing my point and the facts of the matter. I think you should read my post again.
If you and ten guys build a boat together and unknowingly at the time its design is faulty. It starts leaking and every time you try and fix the leak the other guys stop you from fixing it and say its fine. Then the boat fills up with so much water that it sinks, who's fault is it that the boat sunk? Would you share responsibility with the other guys because you built a boat that eventually was going to leak or is it the other guys fault for preventing you from fixing the leak that would have kept the boat afloat?
That's why I support McCain. He acknowledges what's wrong with the Republican party. Of course, George Bush is dumbass. I don't think anyone here actually likes what he's done. No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, War in Iraq, all stupid.
The fact of the matter is, McCain IS NOT Bush, no matter how much Obama and Biden and the media want you to think that. McCain has always been traditionally criticized by the more right-wing Republicans for being too Moderate. But now that the media is brainwashing everyone, we all forget that.
Sarah Palin is not that great, but that certainly isn't changing my vote. I'm voting for MCCAIN not PALIN.
-Reagan
you are voting for 4 more years of the same ... like i say to all people who are picking mccain - do you think the people that are the architects of that party leave when administrations change!?? ... the only reason mccain got the nomination was because he started playing ball with the people that matter and that means agreeing with bush on everything (see record) ...
anyhoo - this is why no matter what an administration does while in power - the elections will always be close ... people aren't willing to hold people accountable ...
If we where talking about McCain back in 2000 I would agree with you in a heart beat, but not with the McCain today. he seems to have sold himself out to get to the Oval Office and he has sided with the Bush administration over 90% of the time. The McCain today is not the Maverick from 8 years ago. I don't need the media, Obama or Biden to tell me that. i just have to look at his voting record. To me the only saving grace he his VP pick and he dropped the ball on that one. He choose someone who has the same views of the VP as Cheney.
The problem with this argument is that McCain DOES agree with Bush on all of the things you mentioned. He did support the Patriot Act in full. He did support No Child Left Behind. He did vote for the war in Iraq. He did vote to move troops away from Afghanistan. He has consistently voted for de-regulation of the Wall Street industry. He has consistently voted against giving tax breaks and rewards for innovation regarding alternative energy. Don't take my word for it, use ontheissues.org or the Senate website if you don't believe me. I don't think he disagrees with the Republicans 100 percent of the time, but this idea that he is a maverick is a fallacy. And on the things he did disagree with Bush on, he has changed his mind. Remember in 2003 when he opposed the Bush tax cuts? Now he supports them whole-heartedly. He just magically had a change-of-heart on all the issues that made him a maverick? Doubtful; he's moved to the right and abandoned those principles because he wants to win.
I'd be happy to vote the Republicans out, as soon as the Dems put up a candidate I actually agree with.
"4 more years of the same," that's some nice rhetoric. Of course, McCain has to pander to the "architects of the party" to get the nomination.
-Reagan
He received the nomination already so why is he still pandering?
i am by no means saying you should vote democrat - there are other options ...
it's the truth ... and as readily as you admit that he has to pander to these architects - what makes you think those self-serving policies are going to change?? ...
again - you've been screwed 8 years by a republican administration and you are gonna vote for them again - if that isn't rewarding their behaviour i don't know what is ...
So did Obama!
And, actually, Obama has voted the same as McCain most of the time, also. Senators never really vote that differently from each other most of the time, at least the ones that actually want to move up in the political world don't. And this is not a knock against Obama, it's just the truth. Most of these people, Biden, McCain, Clinton, Obama, vote the same way at least 90% of the time. They all voted for the Patriot Act without even reading it, they all voted for No Child Left behind Act, they all voted for the War In Iraq.
And, yes, McCain has had to seriously change his outlook on certain things to get elected. When he was first nominated, hard line conservatives were very pissed off. So he's had to cater to them a little. I think he'll go back to the way he was once hes in office, just like how we would see Obama go back to the way he really is, extremely left. Both of them have had to change the way they are perceived. That's politics. Once they're in office they'll change back.
-Reagan
That is why neither of them deserve to hold the office of the Presidency.
i always laugh when i read this ... the democrats would be a right wing party in most countries!! ... you guys don't know left - let alone extreme left ...
Ever notice that Bill Clinton was labeled an extreme liberal. Then in 2000 Gore was the most liberal candidate for president only to have Kerry take the title in 04 and now Obama hold the title of the most liberal person to run for President. It just seems that every four years the right labels the Democratic candidate as the most liberal. Kerry was pretty liberal but Obama is definitely more Centrist.
Obama did not vote for any of those. Obama did not vote for the original Patriot Act or the original Iraq vote because he was in the state Senate at the time. He spoke out against both of those actions at the time whereas McCain was in lockstep with the Bush administration. Since then, Obama voted for a Patriot Act that restricted some of the more odious executive privileges awarded by the original act passed post 9/11. McCain voted for the Patriot Act to remain exactly as it was. Obama has voted for a timeline in Iraq, and McCain has not. You say Obama voted for all of these things, but that's just not true.
You're absolutely right. McCain, Clinton and Biden all voted for the Iraq war. They all voted to give the executive branch unprecedented power with the Patriot Act. Consistently, McCain has been wrong on these issues and Obama has been right on these issues. You seem to agree with Obama on these votes more than you do with McCain.
McCain's catered to them a little? Where do I begin? Abortion? He said he did not care to overturn Roe v. Wade, now he says he will appoint Supreme Court justices that will do just that. Immigration? He says that he no longer supports the paths to amnesty that he once did. Taxes? He called the Bush tax cuts "offensive" in 2003, and now wants to make them permanent. McCain has not catered them "a little"...on most of the things that differentiated himself with the Republican party, he has moved to the right, sacrificing those principles that made him such a breath of fresh air in 2000. And he has given no sign that he would "change back." Say what you want about Obama, but at least his record from the past eight years matches his rhetoric.
And you do, Mr. Holier Than Thou? I live in this world, too, you know. Anyway, why don't you "enlighten me" on what extreme left really is, then? Just so we're on the same page.
And I didn't say Democrats, I said Obama. Big difference there. The majority of Democrats are not nearly as far left as Obama.
-Reagan
Sweep the Leg Johnny.