Obama winning some favor with the repubs

[msmith198025]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/17/republicans-salute-obama-military-tack/

[fallout2600]

Sure, neo-cons probably love his recent moves.

[vurbano]

Its a little like satan offering the apple.

[msmith198025]

What would you rather he do in regards to THIS situation than what he has?

[Bear Paws]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/17/republicans-salute-obama-military-tack/ I'm keeping a eye on his left hand. I'm glad he reversed himself ...but did he? Or is he just counting on his buds over at the ACLU and the Supremes to do his dirty work... I need a little more of a track record before I start going gaga over this latest flim flam.
Remember ...he is the one that squeezed the tube. Now he is trying to put the paste back in? Color me skeptical..

[vurbano]

What would you rather he do in regards to THIS situation than what he has?
Oh I love it. Flip flopping on Gitmo and the prisoner abuse photos. Even Jim Webb admitted today that he doesnt want those chinese terrorists released in Virginia, but the photo thing is bologna, it can't be stopped and he knows it.

[vurbano]

Or is he just counting on his buds over at the ACLU and the Supremes to do his dirty work...
Bingo.... He knows he won't win that. The Supreme court won't hear that case. If the ACLU backs down then we will know that Obama is serious and that he and Sorros called them off of this. I doubt that will happen though.

[msmith198025]

What would you rather he do in regards to THIS situation than what he has?

I have to ask this again.

I agree. Watch him.

We all should as people from the "other side", but what could he have done in this situation that would not have drawn criticism?

I am just saying give the man credit where it is due. If this is not one of those situations, then by all means, dont. If it is, do.

Just dont change the rules on him mid stream.

[vurbano]

I am just saying give the man credit where it is due. If this is not one of those situations, then by all means, dont. If it is, do.

Just dont change the rules on him mid stream.This man and the DEMS used Gitmo to turn Bush into Satan during the campaign and then associated McCain with Bush 100 times in every speech. He turns around and keep it open and you want me to praise this lying piece of crap?:free-happy-smileys-

Obama knew full well that those people were dangerous and their countries didnt want them. He also knew the public didnt want them released into their neighborhoods. He knew very well that he was lying for political gain. But now we should praise him? Sure.

[msmith198025]

This man and the DEMS used Gitmo to turn Bush into Satan during the campaign and then associated McCain with Bush 100 times in every speech. He turns around and keep it open and you want me to praise this lying piece of crap?:free-happy-smileys-

Obama knew full well that those people were dangerous and their countries didnt want them. He also knew the public didnt want them released into their neighborhoods. He knew very well that he was lying for political gain. But now we should praise him? Sure.

I agree that there are some dems that ONLY want to crucify the last administration. No doubt about that. It is a political play, nothing more.

I am simply saying, if he would not have changed position here, people on the right would have said he was wrong. He did, and people on the right are still saying he is wrong (here at least). Just dont use a double standard.

Give the man some slack. This is the kind of partisian politics that you would be screaming against had the repubs won this election.

By the way, this is not all about gitmo

Hell, I do not agree with everything he does, for that matter, I do not agree with most of his decisions. But when he does do something right, I do not go and say, well he was wrong anyway. I am trying to find that middle ground,, because lord knows this country could use it.

[HD MM]

Thank you for the open-mindedness Msmith.

As for the rest of you, when will you start to realize that we as a Nation are all in this together? There are no sides. The more we argue, the further we separate in solving some major issues in this country. We need to find a neutral ground and build from there.

[fallout2600]

Thank you for the open-mindedness Msmith.

As for the rest of you, when will you start to realize that we as a Nation are all in this together? There are no sides. The more we argue, the further we separate in solving some major issues in this country. We need to find a neutral ground and build from there.

That's a wonderful Utopian dream. I'd rather debate everyday instead of becoming one unique tyranny. Debate is what solves problems, if we are still arguing (as you call it), I call it debating, then we haven't reached the best solution yet. Debate is democracy at work, silence is tyranny.

[msmith198025]

Debate is great, there are just many (not calling anyone out here, I see it other places as well) that will curse the man if he does everything that they want him to just because he is from the "other side". That kind of close mindedness does nothing to make it better.

[fallout2600]

Debate is great, there are just many (not calling anyone out here, I see it other places as well) that will curse the man if he does everything that they want him to just because he is from the "other side". That kind of close mindedness does nothing to make it better.

I see your point and agree. That's why its good to be an independent...partisan bickering doesn't mean jack if you don't worship either party. To comment on those Repubs that don't give Obama a chance, is it too hard to understand the treatment the Dems gave Bush for the last 6 years of his tenure. I guess what goes around comes around and as always, ignorance is bliss.

[stevenl]

Bush didnt get his poor treatment until after he began messing up the country.. Obama got it before election day.

[Bear Paws]

I have to ask this again.

I agree. Watch him.

We all should as people from the "other side", but what could he have done in this situation that would not have drawn criticism?

I am just saying give the man credit where it is due. If this is not one of those situations, then by all means, dont. If it is, do.

Just dont change the rules on him mid stream. Like I said.. He is the one who squeezed the tube in this affair.. He started the fire and now he is caught up in it.http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_12160615
"The documents were released with minimal redactions, indicating that Obama sided against current and former CIA officials who for weeks had pressed the White House to withhold sensitive details about specific interrogation techniques"

[Bear Paws]

Bush didnt get his poor treatment until after he began messing up the country.. Obama got it before election day. Yeah.. the post 2000 elections smears and diatribes was just the innocent warm up..

[vurbano]

Give the man some slack.
No thankyou. There was NO ONE who used these types of BUSH is evil issues for more political gain than Obama. And the photo thing is all for show. He knows he can't stop it. Its an underhanded attempt to gain republican support. And the ones too stupid will fall for it.

[fallout2600]

I agree with that, he's gotta say face if he can't stop the ACLU.

[msmith198025]

I see your point and agree. That's why its good to be an independent...partisan bickering doesn't mean jack if you don't worship either party. To comment on those Repubs that don't give Obama a chance, is it too hard to understand the treatment the Dems gave Bush for the last 6 years of his tenure. I guess what goes around comes around and as always, ignorance is bliss.

No, but just because one side did it does not make it ok for the other.

Or so it should be. It rarely is. The same washington, you did it so will we attitude is alive and well in the public it seems.

[msmith198025]

No thankyou. There was NO ONE who used these types of BUSH is evil issues for more political gain than Obama. And the photo thing is all for show. He knows he can't stop it. Its an underhanded attempt to gain republican support. And the ones too stupid will fall for it.
And Bush or the repubs never did anything to get favor with the other side?

[stevenl]

Yeah.. the post 2000 elections smears and diatribes was just the innocent warm up..

The dems were rightfully upset. America didnt choose the president the courts did.

But the country was still on Bushs side aside from that. Even during that trying time, Bush had approval ratings rather high that would indicate democrat support. And he even peaked at somthing like 90% approval rating. It wasnt until everything he did started failing that it got real bad for him. As his approval ratings fell the attacks against him grew.. OBama on the other hand when have you guys stopped? You guys were on him even before he was elected and still to this day are on him. Every little move he makes. You guys speak of this "BDS" But I think the ODS is far worse, as it is here before Obama has even got a chance to do anything. At least the BDS started after Bush ran the country into the ground.

[fallout2600]

No, but just because one side did it does not make it ok for the other.

Or so it should be. It rarely is. The same washington, you did it so will we attitude is alive and well in the public it seems.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying it. This is a prime example of why the Founding Fathers were against party systems. And now we are seeing the nasty effects of a 2 party system on society. The majority of people have become either yes or no people depending on whether their party is in power. What ever happened to opening your mind and thinking for yourself.

[msmith198025]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying it. This is a prime example of why the Founding Fathers were against party systems. And now we are seeing the nasty effects of a 2 party system on society. The majority of people have become either yes or no people depending on whether their party is in power. What ever happened to opening your mind and thinking for yourself.

:thumbup:

[HD MM]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying it. This is a prime example of why the Founding Fathers were against party systems. And now we are seeing the nasty effects of a 2 party system on society. The majority of people have become either yes or no people depending on whether their party is in power. What ever happened to opening your mind and thinking for yourself.

You can think for yourself all you want, but unfortunately when it comes down to it, you need to chose R or D in the booth as those are our only choices.

[Bear Paws]

No thankyou. There was NO ONE who used these types of BUSH is evil issues for more political gain than Obama. And the photo thing is all for show. He knows he can't stop it. Its an underhanded attempt to gain republican support. And the ones too stupid will fall for it.Yep..:thumbup:

[fallout2600]

You can think for yourself all you want, but unfortunately when it comes down to it, you need to chose R or D in the booth as those are our only choices.

But, if you are an R, you don't always have to vote R...vice versa

That's the problem with a 2 party system and being in the "club".

The other problem with a 2 party system is the whole concept of "the lesser of 2 evils".

We need to allow grassroot parties into the debates.

[Bear Paws]

The dems were rightfully upset. America didnt choose the president the courts did.

But the country was still on Bushs side aside from that. Even during that trying time, Bush had approval ratings rather high that would indicate democrat support. And he even peaked at somthing like 90% approval rating. It wasnt until everything he did started failing that it got real bad for him. As his approval ratings fell the attacks against him grew.. OBama on the other hand when have you guys stopped? You guys were on him even before he was elected and still to this day are on him. Every little move he makes. You guys speak of this "BDS" But I think the ODS is far worse, as it is here before Obama has even got a chance to do anything. At least the BDS started after Bush ran the country into the ground.
Your memory is getting selective and short. "Rather Gate" was just one of thousands of malicious and vicious personal slurs and lies. The fungal germ of BDS was planted well during the 2000 election.

Regardless whether you agree with the law or not, one can at least see that George W Bush saved us from a fates worse than death by beating Al Gore and then John Kerry. Al Gore would have us mired in Kyoto and Kerry would be demanding another Purple Heart for his collection.

I'm not certain we can say that about the recent election. However being a eternal optimist I see a bright spot in this dark cloud of Obamamania. The American people are finally seeing first hand what the real Marxist life they have been fantasizing for since the 60s really looks like. It should set the Socialist Progressive "cause" back a century. Hopefully forever in the garbage bin where it should have been relegated when the Manifesto was first drafted. Apparently we didn't learn well enough from Carter Marxist Lite.. Obama is going to be a expensive lesson but then most good long lasting lessons can be painful.

Too bad he will ruin the oppertunity for another black man in the White House for a long while. He was wrongly elected for reasons of his color and his politics was completely ignored lest the left be called racist.. He is a willing Manchurian Candidate given you by the Socialists..You got suckered.....again.

[fallout2600]

Bear, I agree with most of that and to add to it. James Carville's nonsense of 40 years of Dem rule is nothing but propaganda to sucker more moderates and independents into full blown Democrat zombies.

[HD MM]

Bear, I agree with most of that and to add to it. James Carville's nonsense of 40 years of Dem rule is nothing but propaganda to sucker more moderates and independents into full blown Democrat zombies.

That or Carville may be actually onto something. It isn't any kind of secret that the GOP is in big trouble.

Yesterday's Gallup report (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx) documented that over the past 8 years the Republican party has lost identifiers in practically every single demographic group that Gallup reports data on (with the one exception of frequent church goers).

Yet Righties stay dead set on their conquest of tying to "rebrand" the Left by calling them "Socialists", instead of rebranding their own party which is in major need of an overhaul.

The GOP is contracting into a social conservative-only party that is more concerned with ending abortion and gay marriage, rather than everything going on these days. Until they change, they will continue to shrink their party instead of expanding it.

[Skyhi]

....

Regardless whether you agree with the law or not, one can at least see that George W Bush saved us from a fates worse than death by beating Al Gore and then John Kerry. Al Gore would have us mired in Kyoto and Kerry would be demanding another Purple Heart for his collection....

:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-

[Skyhi]

That or Carville may be actually onto something. It isn't any kind of secret that the GOP is in big trouble.

Yesterday's Gallup report (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx) documented that over the past 8 years the Republican party has lost identifiers in practically every single demographic group that Gallup reports data on (with the one exception of frequent church goers).

Yet Righties stay dead set on their conquest of tying to "rebrand" the Left by calling them "Socialists", instead of rebranding their own party which is in major need of an overhaul.

The GOP is contracting into a social conservative-only party that is more concerned with ending abortion and gay marriage, rather than everything going on these days. Until they change, they will continue to shrink their party instead of expanding it.

I'm sure there are a lot of very intelligent people at GOP headquarters, so why they don't understand this premise is baffling to me.

[fallout2600]

That or Carville may be actually onto something. It isn't any kind of secret that the GOP is in big trouble.

Yesterday's Gallup report (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx) documented that over the past 8 years the Republican party has lost identifiers in practically every single demographic group that Gallup reports data on (with the one exception of frequent church goers).

Yet Righties stay dead set on their conquest of tying to "rebrand" the Left by calling them "Socialists", instead of rebranding their own party which is in major need of an overhaul.

The GOP is contracting into a social conservative-only party that is more concerned with ending abortion and gay marriage, rather than everything going on these days. Until they change, they will continue to shrink their party instead of expanding it.

The GOP is undergoing a leadership change right now between Ron Paul libertarians and the Religious Right. Depending on who takes power will decide their ultimate fate. If Ron Paul gets control, prepare to see the youth in colleges start to transition to the GOP. Nobody other than Ron Paul describes how screwed the youth is when it comes to Social Security and that the answer is not big govt. After all, if they are going to return to conservatism, Ron Paul needs to lead the boat along with the Gov of SC. Both parties futures lie in the battle for the youth:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14091234/YAR-March-2009

[Bear Paws]

I'm sure there are a lot of very intelligent people at GOP headquarters, so why they don't understand this premise is baffling to me. Alot do.. Its just the old leaders like Graham McCain that took us here are reluctant to give up control. They failed us and still think their way is "it".
The Republitarian movement is quietly gaining ground every day. See Fallout's post. THe unification of the fiscally conservatives, the bi-partisan tea partiers as well as the moderate libertarians combined will be the force that will be next.

[HD MM]

The GOP is undergoing a leadership change right now between Ron Paul libertarians and the Religious Right. Depending on who takes power will decide their ultimate fate. If Ron Paul gets control, prepare to see the youth in colleges start to transition to the GOP. Nobody other than Ron Paul describes how screwed the youth is when it comes to Social Security and that the answer is not big govt. After all, if they are going to return to conservatism, Ron Paul needs to lead the boat along with the Gov of SC. Both parties futures lie in the battle for the youth:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14091234/YAR-March-2009

I gather from your posts you're a Ron Paul guy, huh? I have to admit, a lot of what I've heard from him makes sense, but isn't he a tad extreme? He seems like the R's version of Dennis Kucinich. Doesn't Paul want to disband all federal institutions like the FBI, DEA, CIA and IRS?

[fallout2600]

I gather from your posts you're a Ron Paul guy, huh? I have to admit, a lot of what I've heard from him makes sense, but isn't he a tad extreme? He seems like the R's version of Dennis Kucinich. Doesn't Paul want to disband all federal institutions like the FBI, DEA, CIA and IRS?

Extreme? I wouldn't use that word. If interpreting our Constitution with original intent is extreme, then what is the correct word for how it is abused today? The guy simply believes in small govt and Federalism.

The Repubs during the last election would have liked you to believe that he was a radical extremist that wanted to end of all govt institutions. Not the case at all. Only 2 of the 4 institutions you mentioned he has issue with. IRS for obvious reasons, he believes the 16th amendment is unconstititutional and makes us slaves to the state. DEA because he believes that the War on Drugs has failed and we should be spending money on treatment of users instead of jailing them.

[Skyhi]

Extreme? I wouldn't use that word. If interpreting our Constitution with original intent is extreme, then what is the correct word for how it is abused today? The guy simply believes in small govt and Federalism.

The Repubs during the last election would have liked you to believe that he was a radical extremist that wanted to end of all govt institutions. Not the case at all. Only 2 of the 4 institutions you mentioned he has issue with. IRS for obvious reasons, he believes the 16th amendment is unconstititutional and makes us slaves to the state. DEA because he believes that the War on Drugs has failed and we should be spending money on treatment of users instead of jailing them.

And this is why he's an extremist. I think he has some good ideas, but he goes to far with some of his positions. They don't fit with reality - - - only with his own Utopia. He doesn't know the original intent of the constitution anymore than you or I do......plus he comes across as a condescending jerk. *rant over*

[HD MM]

Extreme? I wouldn't use that word. If interpreting our Constitution with original intent is extreme, then what is the correct word for how it is abused today? The guy simply believes in small govt and Federalism.

The Repubs during the last election would have liked you to believe that he was a radical extremist that wanted to end of all govt institutions. Not the case at all. Only 2 of the 4 institutions you mentioned he has issue with. IRS for obvious reasons, he believes the 16th amendment is unconstititutional and makes us slaves to the state. DEA because he believes that the War on Drugs has failed and we should be spending money on treatment of users instead of jailing them.

See, that's my issue. Why does he get to pick and chose which parts of the constitution he supports. Isn't he supposed to be a Constitutionist in every sense of the word?

[fallout2600]

And this is why he's an extremist. I think he has some good ideas, but he goes to far with some of his positions. They don't fit with reality - - - only with his own Utopia. He doesn't know the original intent of the constitution anymore than you or I do......plus he comes across as a condescending jerk. *rant over*

This is what I don't get, Ron Paul says put an end to income tax. All of a sudden FairTax is an issue supported by Dems and Repubs and a solution to end the income tax. Ron Paul is an extremist, why? It's like attack the man but agree with his point of view? A big chunk of Americans agree with ending the income tax, are they extremists? :augentreher:

[fallout2600]

See, that's my issue. Why does he get to pick and chose which parts of the constitution he supports. Isn't he supposed to be a Constitutionist in every sense of the word?

What are you talking about? An amendment is an amendment, it can be debated and nullified by votes. Amendments are different than the original document, which cannot be changed except thru amendments.

[Skyhi]

He's an extremist in his presentation at the very least. You said he claims the 16th ammendment is unconstitutional. That position is just dead wrong on its face. The 16th ammendment IS the constitution - - - just like the 1st ammendment.

He's arguing that the constitution is unconstitutional. Its a losing argument that he uses to pander to the originalist crowd.

[Skyhi]

What are you talking about? An amendment is an amendment, it can be debated and nullified by votes. Amendments are different than the original document, which cannot be changed except thru amendments.

????

[fallout2600]

He's arguing that the constitution is unconstitutional. Its a losing argument that he uses to pander to the originalist crowd.

No doubt, he's a politician. He's suppose to pander to his base and what he believes in. I'm not trying to glorify the guy.

[fallout2600]

????

My point was the amendment process allows us to change the Constitution, that's why the process was put in place by the Founders. To say that debating the constitutionality of an amendment is extremist doesn't make sense to me. Are we extremist when we state protection under the 1st amendment? or any other?

[Skyhi]

My point was the amendment process allows us to change the Constitution, that's why the process was put in place by the Founders. To say that debating the constitutionality of an amendment is extremist doesn't make sense to me. Are we extremist when we state protection under the 1st amendment? or any other?

You said amendments are different from the original document which simply isn't true. They carry both the same weight and the same burden to change. An ammendment IS the constitution, so by debate its constitutionality, you're debating the constitutionality of the constitution!

No, you're not an extremist when you claim 1st amendment protection. If you claimed the 1st amendment was unconstitutional, I'd call you an extremist.

[stevenl]

Skyhi what he means is not that its "illegal" but that the 16th amendment goes against what the constitution was meant to be.

[fallout2600]

Skyhi what he means is not that its "illegal" but that the 16th amendment goes against what the constitution was meant to be.

Bingo! :thumbup:

[HD MM]

My point was the amendment process allows us to change the Constitution, that's why the process was put in place by the Founders. To say that debating the constitutionality of an amendment is extremist doesn't make sense to me. Are we extremist when we state protection under the 1st amendment? or any other?

My point was that Ron Paul is so highly regarded and you said something to the effect as well, because (paraphrasing) "he supports and stands by the constitution". Well, the 16th amendment is just as much a part of the constitution as the others. I was just pointing out a flaw in a misconceived notion about Ron Paul.

[Skyhi]

Skyhi what he means is not that its "illegal" but that the 16th amendment goes against what the constitution was meant to be.

Ron Paul should chose he words more carefully.

The genius of the constitution is that it's a living document. It was "meant to be" amended and it is what it is.

[Skyhi]

My point was that Ron Paul is so highly regarded and you said something to the effect as well, because (paraphrasing) "he supports and stands by the constitution". Well, the 16th amendment is just as much a part of the constitution as the others. I was just pointing out a flaw in a misconceived notion about Ron Paul.

:thumbup: That's a less verbose/obtuse summary of my point. :)

[vurbano]

And Bush or the repubs never did anything to get favor with the other side?Bush is gone. Move on. join the present world

[vurbano]

My point was that Ron Paul is so highly regarded .....:free-happy-smileys- :free-happy-smileys- :free-happy-smileys-

[fallout2600]

My point was that Ron Paul is so highly regarded and you said something to the effect as well, because (paraphrasing) "he supports and stands by the constitution". Well, the 16th amendment is just as much a part of the constitution as the others. I was just pointing out a flaw in a misconceived notion about Ron Paul.

I said he views the Constitution from the point of view of original intent and anyone who does would agree that the 16th amendment violates the limited power granted to the Federal Govt in the constitution. If you want to highlight 2 phrases from my post and then ignore the rest, so be it.

[msmith198025]

Bush is gone. Move on. join the present world

I have, I simply see no reason to hold one to a standard that the other was not required to meet (in some peoples eyes)

[Bear Paws]

Bush is gone. Move on. join the present world They only want to move on when it suits their convenience.. Bush is a intentional distracting canard red herring argument used by the left to deflect from the reality of the Obama abyss we are looking into. Its a childish "he did it too" equivalency line to justify even much worse behavior.

[HD MM]

They only want to move on when it suits their convenience.. Bush is a intentional distracting canard red herring argument used by the left to deflect from the reality of the Obama abyss we are looking into. Its a childish "he did it too" equivalency line to justify even much worse behavior.

How can you correct the future without learning from the past?

In other words, how can the current administration clean up the mess from the last 8 years without holding accountable the wrong doers who were responsible for the state we're in now?

[msmith198025]

They only want to move on when it suits their convenience.. Bush is a intentional distracting canard red herring argument used by the left to deflect from the reality of the Obama abyss we are looking into. Its a childish "he did it too" equivalency line to justify even much worse behavior.

Have you read the conversation that we are having?

You may have a point, but it really does not apply to what I was asking Vurb.

My observation, and it may be off base, was that he seems to be holding Obama to standards that Bush was NOT held to. He is of course not the only one that appears to be doing this, and it makes no sense to me. Which is why I brought it up.

[fallout2600]

How can you correct the future without learning from the past?

In other words, how can the current administration clean up the mess from the last 8 years without holding accountable the wrong doers who were responsible for the state we're in now?

I agree, let's hold all who got us into the mess accountable. Let's clean the House out in 2010 with smart, fiscally restrained and responsible people. Until then, we will continue to get suckered. It doesn't matter what party they belong to, it only matters what their voting record is.

[vurbano]

I have, I simply see no reason to hold one to a standard that the other was not required to meet (in some peoples eyes)Holy crap on a stick. Bush was no fiscal conservative so it is ok if Obama is not? It ok if Obama is even worse? So if one person does something wrong the next should not be corrected? We should close our eyes while the nation is destroyed? You would make a good clueless irresponsible Congressman just like the majority of them. :augentreher:

[msmith198025]

:rolleyes:
Holy crap on a stick. So if one person does something wrong the next should not be corrected? We should close our eyes? You would make a good Congressman. :augentreher:

I am not saying the other should not be corrected or criticized (of course they should). You are missing my point completely. I really see no other way to make it more clear, but I will try

Did you or did you not hold Bush to the same standard? If so, I did not see it on any forum we both were on. Of course, I may be wrong, and I do not mean to single you out personally, I was making a point that many didnt.

Edit: Nice edit:rolleyes: