OT: Obama is Conservative

[gandalf]

If you don’t have anything RELEVANT to say, WHY ARE YOU POSTING HERE???

Oh, and another thing. Stop lecturing me about reading comprehension. It’s not like I actually read your posts. They make me cross-eyed. You’re a regular Alice in Wonderland of truth and logic.

BTW, my reading comprehension is excellent. You don’t get to go to places like Columbia without reading comprehension skills. Not sure if you knew about that.

Although I do get bored easily. Especially with your condescending crap. And your partisan rants. I usually tune out when you go in that direction.

OTH, if you stay on topic and make a RELEVANT and cogent point, I might be able to follow.

Nothing substantive, relevant or respectful to contribute? You should try ‘not posting’. That would be the correct decision.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

Uh, ya, which explains why we went back to record deficits once the Republicans ruled the white house and congress. sheesh.[/quote]

I agree that the republicans squandered a great opportunity to cut spending which is why I am disgusted with them.

It doesn’t change the fact that Newt Gingrich was the one who got the budget balanced by the way he ran the House.

Plus most of the excess money came out of the capital gains from the stock market. One time event.

Besides you are not trying to say that the democrats have balancing the budget as an objective are you?? If so where is the proof?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

Uh, ya, which explains why we went back to record deficits once the Republicans ruled the white house and congress. sheesh.[/quote]

I agree that the republicans squandered a great opportunity to cut spending which is why I am disgusted with them.

It doesn’t change the fact that Newt Gingrich was the one who got the budget balanced by the way he ran the House.

Plus most of the excess money came out of the capital gains from the stock market. One time event.

Besides you are not trying to say that the democrats have balancing the budget as an objective are you?? If so where is the proof?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

Uh, ya, which explains why we went back to record deficits once the Republicans ruled the white house and congress. sheesh.[/quote]

I agree that the republicans squandered a great opportunity to cut spending which is why I am disgusted with them.

It doesn’t change the fact that Newt Gingrich was the one who got the budget balanced by the way he ran the House.

Plus most of the excess money came out of the capital gains from the stock market. One time event.

Besides you are not trying to say that the democrats have balancing the budget as an objective are you?? If so where is the proof?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

Uh, ya, which explains why we went back to record deficits once the Republicans ruled the white house and congress. sheesh.[/quote]

I agree that the republicans squandered a great opportunity to cut spending which is why I am disgusted with them.

It doesn’t change the fact that Newt Gingrich was the one who got the budget balanced by the way he ran the House.

Plus most of the excess money came out of the capital gains from the stock market. One time event.

Besides you are not trying to say that the democrats have balancing the budget as an objective are you?? If so where is the proof?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

Uh, ya, which explains why we went back to record deficits once the Republicans ruled the white house and congress. sheesh.[/quote]

I agree that the republicans squandered a great opportunity to cut spending which is why I am disgusted with them.

It doesn’t change the fact that Newt Gingrich was the one who got the budget balanced by the way he ran the House.

Plus most of the excess money came out of the capital gains from the stock market. One time event.

Besides you are not trying to say that the democrats have balancing the budget as an objective are you?? If so where is the proof?

John

[surveyor]

gandalf, you have a documented history of attempting to put words in my mouth. You constantly assign me positions that I do not have and assume political stances that I have never advocated. So you’ll have to do better than “oh, I know how to read because I went to Columbia.” And for one thing, I’m not partisan. The fact that you keep bringing it up means that you are partisan yourself, thereby contradicting your claims to be a “moderate.”

I do find it ironic that you assert that you have reading comprehension and then admit that you have difficulty reading my posts. Doesn’t that prove my point about your reading comprehension?

By the way, when you say you “tune out”, that means YOU ARE NOT READING.

So while I’ve already answered your questions ad naueseum, it makes no difference because you’ve already admitted that you are not reading them. So you should try “not posting.” My content stands for itself.

Reading is fundamental.

By the way, (and this is a reading comprehension thing too) I am saying that the question, the labels (of conservative/liberal policies) is IRRELEVANT. That doesn’t mean that what I am posting is IRRELEVANT.

Geez, try reading.

[surveyor]

gandalf, you have a documented history of attempting to put words in my mouth. You constantly assign me positions that I do not have and assume political stances that I have never advocated. So you’ll have to do better than “oh, I know how to read because I went to Columbia.” And for one thing, I’m not partisan. The fact that you keep bringing it up means that you are partisan yourself, thereby contradicting your claims to be a “moderate.”

I do find it ironic that you assert that you have reading comprehension and then admit that you have difficulty reading my posts. Doesn’t that prove my point about your reading comprehension?

By the way, when you say you “tune out”, that means YOU ARE NOT READING.

So while I’ve already answered your questions ad naueseum, it makes no difference because you’ve already admitted that you are not reading them. So you should try “not posting.” My content stands for itself.

Reading is fundamental.

By the way, (and this is a reading comprehension thing too) I am saying that the question, the labels (of conservative/liberal policies) is IRRELEVANT. That doesn’t mean that what I am posting is IRRELEVANT.

Geez, try reading.

[surveyor]

gandalf, you have a documented history of attempting to put words in my mouth. You constantly assign me positions that I do not have and assume political stances that I have never advocated. So you’ll have to do better than “oh, I know how to read because I went to Columbia.” And for one thing, I’m not partisan. The fact that you keep bringing it up means that you are partisan yourself, thereby contradicting your claims to be a “moderate.”

I do find it ironic that you assert that you have reading comprehension and then admit that you have difficulty reading my posts. Doesn’t that prove my point about your reading comprehension?

By the way, when you say you “tune out”, that means YOU ARE NOT READING.

So while I’ve already answered your questions ad naueseum, it makes no difference because you’ve already admitted that you are not reading them. So you should try “not posting.” My content stands for itself.

Reading is fundamental.

By the way, (and this is a reading comprehension thing too) I am saying that the question, the labels (of conservative/liberal policies) is IRRELEVANT. That doesn’t mean that what I am posting is IRRELEVANT.

Geez, try reading.

[surveyor]

gandalf, you have a documented history of attempting to put words in my mouth. You constantly assign me positions that I do not have and assume political stances that I have never advocated. So you’ll have to do better than “oh, I know how to read because I went to Columbia.” And for one thing, I’m not partisan. The fact that you keep bringing it up means that you are partisan yourself, thereby contradicting your claims to be a “moderate.”

I do find it ironic that you assert that you have reading comprehension and then admit that you have difficulty reading my posts. Doesn’t that prove my point about your reading comprehension?

By the way, when you say you “tune out”, that means YOU ARE NOT READING.

So while I’ve already answered your questions ad naueseum, it makes no difference because you’ve already admitted that you are not reading them. So you should try “not posting.” My content stands for itself.

Reading is fundamental.

By the way, (and this is a reading comprehension thing too) I am saying that the question, the labels (of conservative/liberal policies) is IRRELEVANT. That doesn’t mean that what I am posting is IRRELEVANT.

Geez, try reading.

[surveyor]

gandalf, you have a documented history of attempting to put words in my mouth. You constantly assign me positions that I do not have and assume political stances that I have never advocated. So you’ll have to do better than “oh, I know how to read because I went to Columbia.” And for one thing, I’m not partisan. The fact that you keep bringing it up means that you are partisan yourself, thereby contradicting your claims to be a “moderate.”

I do find it ironic that you assert that you have reading comprehension and then admit that you have difficulty reading my posts. Doesn’t that prove my point about your reading comprehension?

By the way, when you say you “tune out”, that means YOU ARE NOT READING.

So while I’ve already answered your questions ad naueseum, it makes no difference because you’ve already admitted that you are not reading them. So you should try “not posting.” My content stands for itself.

Reading is fundamental.

By the way, (and this is a reading comprehension thing too) I am saying that the question, the labels (of conservative/liberal policies) is IRRELEVANT. That doesn’t mean that what I am posting is IRRELEVANT.

Geez, try reading.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Not trying to appear as though I am piling on, but I was curious as to your answers to my earlier questions.

This is starting to fall into something of a partisan rut, and I don’t want to see that happen.

I would also be interested in what you think “American Realism” is when it comes to foreign policy. I honestly will profess to not having a clue what the hell that phrase means. Is it a “balance of power” strategy, is it a return to Kissingerian “Realpolitik”? For all I can tell, it portends a return to Bismarck and his “Weltpolitik” strategy.

Zakaria is very coy in describing any of Obama’s position in any detail. My suspicion is that he would have a hard time doing so, because Obama doesn’t have a fully featured foreign policy program. So, when you speak of a return to “American Realism”, I would be curious as to what we are returning to and a description as to what it is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Not trying to appear as though I am piling on, but I was curious as to your answers to my earlier questions.

This is starting to fall into something of a partisan rut, and I don’t want to see that happen.

I would also be interested in what you think “American Realism” is when it comes to foreign policy. I honestly will profess to not having a clue what the hell that phrase means. Is it a “balance of power” strategy, is it a return to Kissingerian “Realpolitik”? For all I can tell, it portends a return to Bismarck and his “Weltpolitik” strategy.

Zakaria is very coy in describing any of Obama’s position in any detail. My suspicion is that he would have a hard time doing so, because Obama doesn’t have a fully featured foreign policy program. So, when you speak of a return to “American Realism”, I would be curious as to what we are returning to and a description as to what it is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Not trying to appear as though I am piling on, but I was curious as to your answers to my earlier questions.

This is starting to fall into something of a partisan rut, and I don’t want to see that happen.

I would also be interested in what you think “American Realism” is when it comes to foreign policy. I honestly will profess to not having a clue what the hell that phrase means. Is it a “balance of power” strategy, is it a return to Kissingerian “Realpolitik”? For all I can tell, it portends a return to Bismarck and his “Weltpolitik” strategy.

Zakaria is very coy in describing any of Obama’s position in any detail. My suspicion is that he would have a hard time doing so, because Obama doesn’t have a fully featured foreign policy program. So, when you speak of a return to “American Realism”, I would be curious as to what we are returning to and a description as to what it is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Not trying to appear as though I am piling on, but I was curious as to your answers to my earlier questions.

This is starting to fall into something of a partisan rut, and I don’t want to see that happen.

I would also be interested in what you think “American Realism” is when it comes to foreign policy. I honestly will profess to not having a clue what the hell that phrase means. Is it a “balance of power” strategy, is it a return to Kissingerian “Realpolitik”? For all I can tell, it portends a return to Bismarck and his “Weltpolitik” strategy.

Zakaria is very coy in describing any of Obama’s position in any detail. My suspicion is that he would have a hard time doing so, because Obama doesn’t have a fully featured foreign policy program. So, when you speak of a return to “American Realism”, I would be curious as to what we are returning to and a description as to what it is.

[Author]

Posts