OT: Obama is Conservative

[gandalf]

Yeah, me too. Big-time. Bad economy opens the door to mob democracy and populism. And eventually war. What’s that Lewis quote? When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

The mistake is thinking it’s a ‘leftist’ mob. It’s been fermenting on the right for a couple of decades now, aided and abetted by right-wing opinion makers and politicians — truly anti-American.

Real republicans are starting to realize this too, and seem to be stepping in to keep the wheels from coming off the bus. Establishment is finally reading the tea leaves. McCain campaign crowds last week were just remarkable.

Let us all take care, respect our history and traditions. Hard times ahead and we’re in the midst of a political war with extremists within our own country. May the moderates prevail.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette] It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.[/quote]

I think you mean contRact, unless you’re referencing Republicans bending America over once again. :o)

We’ll have to agree that it was a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress who were present when the budget got balanced. No way of getting around that.

Now let’s look at what happened when we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress..

The Republican Congress eliminated the PAYGO rules (established under Bush I and a Democratic Congress) that basically outlawed deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

The Republican Congress eliminated PAYGO in the early 2000s in order to finance Bush’s tax cuts using a deficit.

This proves once and for all that the Reps can control spending no better than the Dems…they just choose to spend it on different things. Same result either way: our kids will pay for our follies.

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette] It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.[/quote]

I think you mean contRact, unless you’re referencing Republicans bending America over once again. :o)

We’ll have to agree that it was a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress who were present when the budget got balanced. No way of getting around that.

Now let’s look at what happened when we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress..

The Republican Congress eliminated the PAYGO rules (established under Bush I and a Democratic Congress) that basically outlawed deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

The Republican Congress eliminated PAYGO in the early 2000s in order to finance Bush’s tax cuts using a deficit.

This proves once and for all that the Reps can control spending no better than the Dems…they just choose to spend it on different things. Same result either way: our kids will pay for our follies.

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette] It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.[/quote]

I think you mean contRact, unless you’re referencing Republicans bending America over once again. :o)

We’ll have to agree that it was a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress who were present when the budget got balanced. No way of getting around that.

Now let’s look at what happened when we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress..

The Republican Congress eliminated the PAYGO rules (established under Bush I and a Democratic Congress) that basically outlawed deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

The Republican Congress eliminated PAYGO in the early 2000s in order to finance Bush’s tax cuts using a deficit.

This proves once and for all that the Reps can control spending no better than the Dems…they just choose to spend it on different things. Same result either way: our kids will pay for our follies.

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette] It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.[/quote]

I think you mean contRact, unless you’re referencing Republicans bending America over once again. :o)

We’ll have to agree that it was a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress who were present when the budget got balanced. No way of getting around that.

Now let’s look at what happened when we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress..

The Republican Congress eliminated the PAYGO rules (established under Bush I and a Democratic Congress) that basically outlawed deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

The Republican Congress eliminated PAYGO in the early 2000s in order to finance Bush’s tax cuts using a deficit.

This proves once and for all that the Reps can control spending no better than the Dems…they just choose to spend it on different things. Same result either way: our kids will pay for our follies.

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette] It was the Republicans and the “Contact with America” that balanced the budget.[/quote]

I think you mean contRact, unless you’re referencing Republicans bending America over once again. :o)

We’ll have to agree that it was a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress who were present when the budget got balanced. No way of getting around that.

Now let’s look at what happened when we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress..

The Republican Congress eliminated the PAYGO rules (established under Bush I and a Democratic Congress) that basically outlawed deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

The Republican Congress eliminated PAYGO in the early 2000s in order to finance Bush’s tax cuts using a deficit.

This proves once and for all that the Reps can control spending no better than the Dems…they just choose to spend it on different things. Same result either way: our kids will pay for our follies.

[surveyor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=gandalf]surveyor, the continued suggestion that BO is naive, uneducated or uninformed is just HORSESHIT.
[/quote]

…

Obama may be well qualified to serve in the House or Senate, but his resume is still quite thin when it comes to the office of the President of the United States of America.[/quote]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/02/14/harvard-professor-slams-obamas-handling-egypt-morning-joe-panel-dumbfoun

FERGUSON: President Obama is one of the least experienced men, in terms of foreign policy, ever to occupy the White House. And yet he has advisors around him who are, frankly, second if not third rate. And you just can’t do that. It’s far too risky, it’s far too dangerous a world, and some of us said this, when he ran for election, that it was a huge risk to put somebody with that kind of inexperience into a position like Commander-in-Chief of the United States. I think what we’re seeing unfold in Egypt reveals the truth of that statement.

Huh. Really.

My favorite part:

FERGUSON: As far as I can see, President Obama’s strategic concept is “I’m not George W. Bush. Love me.”

[surveyor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=gandalf]surveyor, the continued suggestion that BO is naive, uneducated or uninformed is just HORSESHIT.
[/quote]

…

Obama may be well qualified to serve in the House or Senate, but his resume is still quite thin when it comes to the office of the President of the United States of America.[/quote]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/02/14/harvard-professor-slams-obamas-handling-egypt-morning-joe-panel-dumbfoun

FERGUSON: President Obama is one of the least experienced men, in terms of foreign policy, ever to occupy the White House. And yet he has advisors around him who are, frankly, second if not third rate. And you just can’t do that. It’s far too risky, it’s far too dangerous a world, and some of us said this, when he ran for election, that it was a huge risk to put somebody with that kind of inexperience into a position like Commander-in-Chief of the United States. I think what we’re seeing unfold in Egypt reveals the truth of that statement.

Huh. Really.

My favorite part:

FERGUSON: As far as I can see, President Obama’s strategic concept is “I’m not George W. Bush. Love me.”

[surveyor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=gandalf]surveyor, the continued suggestion that BO is naive, uneducated or uninformed is just HORSESHIT.
[/quote]

…

Obama may be well qualified to serve in the House or Senate, but his resume is still quite thin when it comes to the office of the President of the United States of America.[/quote]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/02/14/harvard-professor-slams-obamas-handling-egypt-morning-joe-panel-dumbfoun

FERGUSON: President Obama is one of the least experienced men, in terms of foreign policy, ever to occupy the White House. And yet he has advisors around him who are, frankly, second if not third rate. And you just can’t do that. It’s far too risky, it’s far too dangerous a world, and some of us said this, when he ran for election, that it was a huge risk to put somebody with that kind of inexperience into a position like Commander-in-Chief of the United States. I think what we’re seeing unfold in Egypt reveals the truth of that statement.

Huh. Really.

My favorite part:

FERGUSON: As far as I can see, President Obama’s strategic concept is “I’m not George W. Bush. Love me.”

[surveyor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=gandalf]surveyor, the continued suggestion that BO is naive, uneducated or uninformed is just HORSESHIT.
[/quote]

…

Obama may be well qualified to serve in the House or Senate, but his resume is still quite thin when it comes to the office of the President of the United States of America.[/quote]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/02/14/harvard-professor-slams-obamas-handling-egypt-morning-joe-panel-dumbfoun

FERGUSON: President Obama is one of the least experienced men, in terms of foreign policy, ever to occupy the White House. And yet he has advisors around him who are, frankly, second if not third rate. And you just can’t do that. It’s far too risky, it’s far too dangerous a world, and some of us said this, when he ran for election, that it was a huge risk to put somebody with that kind of inexperience into a position like Commander-in-Chief of the United States. I think what we’re seeing unfold in Egypt reveals the truth of that statement.

Huh. Really.

My favorite part:

FERGUSON: As far as I can see, President Obama’s strategic concept is “I’m not George W. Bush. Love me.”

[Author]

Posts