Obama Kicks GOP Butt (in Debates)


Lord Bob January 30 2010 1:43 PM EST

Because conservatives aren't the only ones around here who can post political threads.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/obama-goes-to-the-gop-lio_n_442331.html


So effective was the president that Fox News cut away from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended.

Sounds just like Faux News. It didn't fit in with their propaganda, so they just decided not to show the rest of it.

ScY January 31 2010 7:07 PM EST

Simply fantastic. Unfortunately I was unable to see the originally aired footage (mostly due to not being aware of it) and I watched it all online.

Fantastic.

QBRanger January 31 2010 7:09 PM EST

Yes,
so effective that he still is dropping in polls and cannot get anything done.

Adminedyit January 31 2010 7:50 PM EST

that sounds like most of his predecessors as well to be honest

QBOddBird January 31 2010 11:17 PM EST

I promised I'd judge him fairly as he went through office when he was first elected, despite my mistrust

and while I have plenty to criticize him for, I give him his due credit in averting an economic crisis with the stimulus package

I'm sorry to hear Fox cut the broadcast short, I would have thought they would stick it out

Ah well

Lord Bob January 31 2010 11:28 PM EST

so effective that he still is dropping in polls ...

Right, and Bush won the popular vote twice. Poll ratings have nothing to do with right and wrong.

QBRanger January 31 2010 11:29 PM EST

When over 50% disapprove of his policies such as Obamacare, that shows where things are headed... in the wrong direction.

The US is a right center country. Excessive left wing policies will be rejected time and time again.

QBRanger January 31 2010 11:38 PM EST

I give him his due credit in averting an economic crisis with the stimulus package

At what cost? Trillions in debt and the future for our kids in jeopardy. The Spendulous bill was too much and the crisis could have been averted by other means designed to stimulate business, not keep them scared about future taxes and scared to hire anyone.

But if Obama has kicked the GOPs butt as you stated, what does he have to show for it during his first year.

Obamacare-DOA
Cap and Trade-Cannot even get to the Senate
Card Check-Never happen
Being friendly to terrorist countries-Got the finger in return
etc..

But he did do 2 things he promised.
He got his family a dog and took his wife out on a date in NYC.

ScY January 31 2010 11:39 PM EST

Then you wont see anything changed..... IMHO, don't complain about the lack of change and then cite the exact reason nothing is improving let alone changing...

QBRanger January 31 2010 11:39 PM EST

Huh?

Lord Bob January 31 2010 11:46 PM EST

When over 50% disapprove of his policies such as Obama care, that shows where things are headed...

In the right direction. See, it's the bad ~50% that disapprove here.

Over 50% disapproved of Bush's policies as well. The difference here is that Bush's policies really were bad.
The US is a right center country.

*laughs* Ah, yes. More right wing talking points, courtesy of Fox News and the Republican PR machine. This country leans in the direction the voters tilt it towards. Do you need me to remind you which way the last election took us?

Instead of more pointless talking points Ranger, why not try to address something actually said in the video?

ScY January 31 2010 11:47 PM EST

"Yes, so effective that he still is dropping in polls and cannot get anything done. "

"The US is a right center country. Excessive left wing policies will be rejected time and time again. "

Sometimes those 'excessive left wing policies' are good as a means to refresh a country and bring it back from peril.

Independent of the empirical merits of Obama's various plans, saying that he has achieved nothing, and then citing the exact reason why is useless---at least economically those 'extreme left-wing policies' were about the only thing possible to do, which was done cyclically by many presidents, namely by FDR.

Those economic policies are required (from a Keynesian standpoint at least).

ScY January 31 2010 11:48 PM EST

My main point being that Obama cant get anything done because of the right-wing::::who then criticizes him for not being able to get anything done.

ScY January 31 2010 11:53 PM EST

A slight generalization of course-- there are other reasons Obama has stalled, however most of it due to Rightwingishness.

QBRanger January 31 2010 11:57 PM EST

What part?

The part where he talks about wanting bipartisanship and then advocates ultra liberal policies that he knows Republicans will never support?

The part where he advocates a cut in small business capital gains taxes when he was against such a cut during his presidential campaign?

The 3 year freeze in discretionary spending when it only effects less than 15% of the budget?

The part when he chats about the health care system and how he 'sought out and supported ideas from Republicans', but every amendment the Republicans proposed was shot down along party lines?

The part when he chats about medical malpractice and the lip service he gave it? Given the trial lawyers are a key contributor to his party.

For someone who campaigned on wanted a bipartisan involvement in polices, he certain has taken quite the liberal course, which he full well knows is not centrist.

To say Republicans are obstructionist is quite the lie, given the only thing they can do is say no to the ultra liberal policies as he learned growing up as a 'community organizer'.

Lord Bob January 31 2010 11:58 PM EST

there are other reasons Obama has stalled, however most of it due to Rightwingishness.

It is hard to get anything of value accomplished when the Right filibusters nearly every major bill put forth.

AdminNightStrike February 1 2010 12:00 AM EST

What reason did Fox give for cutting the broadcast short?

(I watch CSPAN for stuff like that)

QBRanger February 1 2010 12:02 AM EST

My main point being that Obama cant get anything done because of the right-wing::::who then criticizes him for not being able to get anything done.

Right 100%!

When Obama stops having an ultra left wing agenda, the perhaps he can have bipartisanship support.

And PLEASE, do not blame the right wing for the lack of policy making. The Democrats had a super majority for a year and got nothing of substance except for the Spendulus bill passed.

That shows the division even in their ranks.

The US does not want to go to socialism. The election of Scott Brown hopefully showed everyone that.

How else can one explain a Republican who stated he will be the 41st vote against Obamacare getting elected in one of the most liberal states in Ted Kennedy's seat?

If that does not show you that the US is not a liberal happy country, but is a right center country, I have no other way of convincing you.

QBRanger February 1 2010 12:04 AM EST

It is hard to get anything of value accomplished when the Right filibusters nearly every major bill put forth.

Again, when Obama offers more centrist policies, instead of ultra left wing ones, he will have support of more people.

But again, he had a super majority, filibuster proof Senate and still got nothing done.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] February 1 2010 12:11 AM EST

can an admin please move this to debates as well? ; )

ScY February 1 2010 12:13 AM EST

The part where the Requblicans vote on purely party-party lines despite the value of what they are voting for?


Besides that 4/6 of your points were based of things Obama 'talked' or 'chatted' about doing rather than things he made motion to do.

Then to take a shot at the job of community organizer is laughable considering the senility of some of the so-called 'Republican greats' that are in office and for some reason (that escapes reason) are re-elected. (Robert Byrd for example-who admittedly was once left leaning but who has since then cut those ties) or the always laughable Sarah Palin who 'could have been our second-in-command.'

ScY February 1 2010 12:15 AM EST

Sometimes the 'ultra-left wing policies' are best, and the 'right' should consider doing something 'right' instead of voting on PURELY party-party lines.

(and for the record I think the obamacare could use a tad bit of revising)

Lord Bob February 1 2010 12:16 AM EST

The part where he talks about wanting bipartisanship and then advocates ultra liberal policies that he knows Republicans will never support?

Do I need to remind you once again that the Right's definition of bipartisanship has nothing to do with the actual definition of bipartisanship again?

Do I need to ask you again when the right EVER gave us bipartisanship under Bush? Or even now?

When we have two Democratic houses of congress and a Democratic president, bipartisanship certainly doesn't mean doing things the Republicans' way. How about you contact your conservative congressmen and ask them for some bipartisan support in out direction, you know, now that we won the last election.
The part where he advocates a cut in small business capital gains taxes when he was against such a cut during his presidential campaign?

Against for small businesses under $250,000, or businesses and corporations over $250,000?

So are you saying you oppose this now? Where where do you stand now on the issue of tax cuts for small businesses?
The 3 year freeze in discretionary spending when it only effects less than 15% of the budget?

Are you saying you oppose the 15% freeze? You would rather spend that money?
The part when he chats about the health care system and how he 'sought out and supported ideas from Republicans', but every amendment the Republicans proposed was shot down along party lines?

And pointed out how none of them came up with any good ideas, and that's why they were not included?

Ranger, please show us some of the Right's so-called "good" ideas that aren't a grasp at the hard right view of health care. Let's see how bipartisan they are.
For someone who campaigned on wanted a bipartisan involvement in polices

Bipartisanship, not conservative obstructionism, or Democrats caving into the demands of Republicans.
To say Republicans are obstructionist is quite the lie, given !!!the only thing they can do is say no!!! to the ultra liberal policies (Emphasis Bob's)..

So... obstructionists?

AdminTitan February 1 2010 12:20 AM EST

"Sometimes the 'ultra-left wing policies' are best"
Even Hayek and Keynes would agree with the fact that you are wrong about this one.

ScY February 1 2010 12:24 AM EST

Titan: Tell that to all the revolutionaries that ever lived.

I think I dont need to name any examples from history (OH RIGHT THERE WAS THAT UMMMMMMMMMMMMM AMERICAN REVOLUTION?)

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] February 1 2010 12:27 AM EST

Way to much partisanship for anything to ever get done...

QBRanger February 1 2010 12:30 AM EST

I guess we have a difference in opinion on how ultra liberal his policies are.

I guess you need to look at the recent polls to see for yourself.

But I can answer this very easily:
And pointed out how none of them came up with any good ideas, and that's why they were not included?

Ranger, please show us some of the Right's so-called "good" ideas that aren't a grasp at the hard right view of health care. Let's see how bipartisan they are.


1) Allow people to shop for insurance and carry insurance across state lines. Every time the Republicans proposed this, they were shot down.

2) Tort reform. This is shown by studies to save money. About 60B over 10 years on the low side. However, with the trial lawyers being huge Democratic donors, this will not be addressed by Obama. There have been multiple studies in many states about the savings if Tort Reform gets enacted, but every time it is brought up, it is shot down along party lines.

And yet again, the Democrats had a super majority and got almost nothing done. Even some Democrats did not like the liberal policies of Obama.
Sometimes the 'ultra-left wing policies' are best, and the 'right' should consider doing something 'right' instead of voting on PURELY party-party lines.

When he proposes something that is correct, Republicans will vote for it.

If the ultra left wing policies were best, then again, why did a very liberal state elect a Republican senator who specifically stated he would be the 41st vote against healthcare?

The answer is very obvious to me, however, still some liberals keep their head buried in the sand. Refusing to see what is obvious. Ultra liberal policies are not for America.

QBRanger February 1 2010 12:32 AM EST

I think I dont need to name any examples from history (OH RIGHT THERE WAS THAT UMMMMMMMMMMMMM AMERICAN REVOLUTION?)

Yes, the American Revolution was about too much government interference in our daily lives. We revolted to have less government, not more.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 12:34 AM EST

What reason did Fox give for cutting the broadcast short?

I would like Ranger to answer this question as well, if possible.

I would also like to know from him if the Right wing media reported Fox's failure to finish this broadcast. (I'm asking Ranger only because I think he's the person here most likely to follow right wing media.)
The Democrats had a super majority for a year

They have not. Libermann was a conservative Democrat, now a moderate independant, who caucases with Democrats but tends to suck on policy making. As a side note, I've also hated him since I was 12.

There are also several other moderate to conservative Democrats, not to mention a few spineless cowards who will, like most Republicans, always cave to the corporations who sponsor them.

59 Democrats plus crappy Liebermann was never enough to go uber-left in the Senate.
The US does not want to go to socialism.

Nor does Obama or the Democratic party, Mr. Fox-News-Talking-Points. A progressive tax rate and a public option to compete with terrible insurance companies (now sadly dead thanks to Liebermann) does not equate to socialism.

Also, taking over banks in times of extreme economic crisis also does equate with the whole country going socialist. It's a liberal solution, yes. But not a move toward socialism.
How else can one explain a Republican who stated he will be the 41st vote against Obamacare getting elected in one of the most liberal states in Ted Kennedy's seat?

Martha Coakley ran a crap campaign. She deserved to lose. Even I can say that. It wasn't liberals in Massachussets getting fed up with liberal policies, as the right likes to claim.
If that does not show you that the US is not a liberal happy country, but is a right center country, I have no other way of convincing you.

You could always show me the 2008 election results.

Oh wait...
Again, when Obama offers more centrist policies, instead of ultra left wing ones, he will have support of more people.

If Obama was passing more of his left wing policies without Republican Obstructionism, he would have support of more people. If right wing voters saw the effect of these policies, they might stop supporting the obstructionists.

AdminTitan February 1 2010 12:41 AM EST

Oh wait... Again, when Obama offers more centrist policies, instead of ultra left wing ones, he will have support of more people.

If Obama was passing more of his left wing policies without Republican Obstructionism, he would have support of more people. If right wing voters saw the effect of these policies, they might stop supporting the obstructionists.


Thanks for that, now I can go to bed with a smile on.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 12:41 AM EST

1) Allow people to shop for insurance and carry insurance across state lines. Every time the Republicans proposed this, they were shot down.

This was pointed out in the video, and in several articles I've read why this is a terrible idea.
2) Tort reform.

I'll admit front up that maybe my grasp of this isn't where it needs to be. But doesn't "tort reform" basically limit the rights of the patient to sue for malpractice? To me that sounds just awful, but I'll let you respond with more info that I'm probably missing.
We revolted to have less government, not more.

We revolted to have proper representation in our government.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 12:42 AM EST

Thanks for that, now I can go to bed with a smile on.

Do you have anything useful to add, Titan?

ScY February 1 2010 12:42 AM EST

RIGHT!

I forgot how the 'polls' and 'elections' have SOOOO much to do with polarity. I mean we can agree that the country is probably about 55% republican 45% democratic speaking from rough terms with about + or - 5% going either way. However Obama won that election by how much of a landslide? (Charisma had nothing to do with it either of course)

People don't like Obama's healthcare ideas right now. In my opinion, Obama's healthcare could use some improving. If most people in an area (state in this case) dont like Obama's idea and somebody says they will 1000% oppose it, 1+1=2, that person gets elected.

Very obvious answer to me: guy (who happens to be republican) voting (along party lines) against Obama, people happen to be (more or less rightly) against Obamacare so the guy who might as well be of the Tory party gets elected.

AdminTitan February 1 2010 12:43 AM EST

That the election results would be hilarious if Obama tried to push too much through.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 12:45 AM EST

I mean we can agree that the country is probably about 55% republican 45% democratic speaking from rough terms with about + or - 5% going either way.

Last I read the Republican party was in the minority.

And you're forgetting the latge percentage that identifies as independent, myself included (I'm a liberal independent, not a Democrat).

Lord Bob February 1 2010 12:49 AM EST

Hmm, I should probably have finished Scy's post.

Charisma had nothing to do with it either of course.

That isn't really true. Not that it takes anything away from Obama either.

People don't like Obama's healthcare ideas right now.

How much of that is because they were lied to by the obstructionists and their propaganda machines? Death panels, anyone? Rationing care, anyone?

That the election results would be hilarious if Obama tried to push too much through.

I said anything useful. "I laugh at your post" without really responding to it adds nothing to the discussion.

ScY February 1 2010 12:49 AM EST

"Yes, the American Revolution was about too much government interference in our daily lives. We revolted to have less government, not more."

I heard revolution was something of the left side--I think some guy who is very famous was all about revolution. His name was Marx.

The American revolution was not started over night about (in reality very reasonable) taxation. (America was the only of Britain's colonies at that point which was not taxed) We revolted because we did not think a foreign government should have such a great impact on ourselves. Not for less government. (If you remember, we shortly made a government ourselves)

ScY February 1 2010 12:50 AM EST

"Last I read the Republican party was in the minority.

And you're forgetting the latge percentage that identifies as independent, myself included (I'm a liberal independent, not a Democrat)."

Let me make my half-n-half generalization in peace I say!

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] February 1 2010 12:51 AM EST

I mean we can agree that the country is probably about 55% republican 45% democratic speaking from rough terms with about + or - 5% going either way.


I was going to state myself that you can't put everyone into just these two parties. I am also an independent as are a large percentage. I personally don't like everything falling into party lines and people just banwagoning the whole thing.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 12:51 AM EST

Let me make my half-n-half generalization in peace I say!

*grin*

ScY February 1 2010 12:54 AM EST

Fine, 45-45% polar with 5% inbetween. Any way you cut it up its about 50-50 on most ideas. If you want to be called independant-liberal, liberal, democratic, independant, Al Gore, etc.

Personally I dont identify myself a Democrat, however in this super polarized political system we have where it essentially boils down to Democratic or Republican I, for all intents and purposes, am a democrat. Personally I identify myself as more of a socialist or Marxist.

Miandrital February 1 2010 12:57 AM EST

http://people-press.org/report/217/swing-vote-smaller-than-usual-but-still-sizable

Its about 40-40 right now, with the rest in between. I'd say more often than not the people in between are against the incumbent president (grass is greener mentality).

Lord Bob February 1 2010 1:01 AM EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/fewer-people-identify-as_n_326971.html

Lord Bob February 1 2010 1:02 AM EST

Oops, Miandrital beat me to it.

The numbers I posted have tightened up in the last few months, so Miandrital's are probably more valid.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 1:03 AM EST

June 24, 2004

Oh wait, no they aren't. Mine are closer, but still not up the the moment.

AdminTitan February 1 2010 1:07 AM EST

As an aside, LB who do you watch for news?

Lord Bob February 1 2010 1:36 AM EST

As an aside, LB who do you watch for news?

Various sources. I prefer C-Span for obvious reasons. I'll watch Fox when I need a good laugh, but I mainly just end up getting angry at the stupidity. I watch MSNBC when I want to feel at home, but I'm very aware that it's mostly entertainment for liberals and can be considered "news" on the same level as Fox. I honestly think The Daily Show is a better news program than most real news programs on either side.

If you're insinuating I'm liberal because of the sources I watch, rather than vice versa, then watch as I do the laughing from here on out.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] February 1 2010 3:04 AM EST

I think that video was funny, because Obama was compelled to describe the basic principle of democracy to a room full of legislators, because they posed stupid talking points as legitimate questions.

Also this part (from the transcript):
"I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America."

"And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It’s not just on your side, by the way — it’s on our side, as well. This is part of what’s happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do."


Can anyone respond to this comment Obama made?

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 9:54 AM EST

You mean, other than the fact that it is internally consistent, absolutely dead-on, and completely honest?

No, I can't think of anything else to say about it.

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 10:00 AM EST

But, I would then like to know what he is doing in his own part to stop the polarization and demonizing (and I am open to anyone pointing me in an informative direction on the topic, I don't mean that to be accusatory).

It is pretty easy legitimize your own position by saying, "And hey, yeah, our side has problems too!" Where the rubber hits the road is what you then DO about it on "your side".

Even W. would once in a while turn on the humility and say a little "mea culpa" from the Republican side -- but as far as I could tell, he never did thing one about it, and never did thing one to combat the special interests or temper extreme conservatism in his own party. If anything, he fanned the flames of that when it was convenient for him to keep the media stirred up or point fingers at the other side.

That's why things are hard -- there are lots of words around, and they are easy to PUT around. I'd like to see more actual leadership (read: effective results when it comes to "reaching across the aisle"). And that leadership needs to come from every legislator on Capitol Hill, not just Barack Obama.

QBRanger February 1 2010 11:00 AM EST

Yes Sut,

But Obama is the head of the government. Duly elected.

And if his policies go against what most of American wants, bipartisanship is not going to occur.

This ia a president that campaigned on working with the other side. However, his policies leave the Republician little choice other than saying "this is too liberal for us to back".

On the policies that are more mainstream, like sending troops to Afghanistan, he had bipartisan support. But others like Obamacare will not get any Republican support.

One has to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk.

For me, the final straw was the union exemption on the excise tax on Cadillac health care plans. That showed he is no different than another other politician with special interests running the show.

But again, has not the Scott Brown election showed Obama and the country that we are drifting off our right central course to an ultra liberal agenda. And his election was proof of this fact.

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 11:25 AM EST

Ranger, you keep talking about what "most of America wants", but you can seriously knock it off now. You've no idea what "most of America wants", so stop saying that. It's misleading, disingenuous, and has nothing to even do with what I said.

And your points about how someone campaigned are meaningless as well. W proclaimed himself as a decision maker, and said he was accomplishing missions. Something that is very evident was not at all true. Yet you never talk about that. You find plenty to bash Obama about, but when anyone on the GOP side screws up, you hide behind "most of America", an entirely unfounded and asinine thing to say.

I said I want the leaders of this country, all of them, including the President, to start leading instead of polarizing and spouting bullet points. And it would be nice if everyone else stopped thinking they knew what "everyone" or "most of America" wants.

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 11:33 AM EST

Gawd, this "most of America" nonsense has me pretty worked up.

Ranger, you do know that "most of America" was not actually against slavery, at least not in the early days leading up to the Civil War?

You do know that "most of America" thought "separate but equal" Jim Crow type of laws were just fine?

You do know that the American revolutionaries were a small, somewhat radical group, not "most of America?"

You know that most vocal suffragettes were actually in a minority, even among the women for which they were trying to obtain the right to vote! Certainly not "most of America".

And you know Prohibition got pushed through by a relatively tiny, vocal group of people. Not "most of America". And that law was repealed.

"Most of America" is unknown, fickle, brilliant, stupid, right, wrong, radical, conservative, good, and bad all at the same time. There could not be a more meaningless term to use in all of creation. So, by all means, keep saying you know the mind of "most of America". That way, you're painted in a light as ignorant as the statement itself, and that's fine by me.

kevlar February 1 2010 11:37 AM EST

Sut, that's just how politics is though. Polls polls and more polls. There's nothing wrong with talking like that, because that is just how politics is discussed by all sides and all facets of the media/people. And from the trend of the polls lately and the results of the HUGE shift of party voting in very loyal States to the losing party... Ranger is not wrong at all with that statement.

You can be an idealist all you want, and hope that stereotypes like that aren't used, but in the political arena... that isn't going to change.

Case in point: "Most of America" wanted President Bush out of office. You could insert "World" actually in that statement the way his Presidency was discussed from all around the world. And if a poll shows that a high percentage of a poll shows favor or not on a certain topic, that statement is used all the time "The people want or don't want bla bla bla".

QBRanger February 1 2010 11:43 AM EST

And I am sick and tired of people saying they elected Obama because he was a liberal.

They elected him because he was not Bush.

Nobody yet in this thread has addressed the election of Scott Brown as proof that the country does not want an ultra liberal agenda.

To me, that shows exactly what the country wants. And I will say it again-IT IS WHAT THE COUNTRY WANTS!!!!

Right or wrong, correct or incorrect, it is what the country WANTS right now!

Lord Bob February 1 2010 11:43 AM EST

Ranger is not wrong at all with that statement.

Actually he is wrong on several fronts.

1.) Many of the people who are "against" health care reform are against it because they bought the lies of the right. I mentioned this earlier. How many people would be against it if they knew what was actually in the bill.

2.) As noted above, Republicans are in the minority right now. Not just in Congress, but across the nation.

3.) As noted by Sut, "most of America" isn't always right. Those who are against the actual bill (not the parody of it Fox and the tea baggers are selling to the rabble) are in the minority, and are wrong regardless of poll numbers.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 11:47 AM EST

And I am sick and tired of people saying they elected Obama because he was a liberal. They elected him because he was not Bush.

They elected him because he was a liberal, unlike Bush.
Nobody yet in this thread has addressed the election of Scott Brown as proof that the country does not want an ultra liberal agenda.

Pretty sure I did, I just didn't address it in a way that makes your claim about it appear true.
To me, that shows exactly what the country wants. And I will say it again-IT IS WHAT THE COUNTRY WANTS!!!!

So the right wingers of Massachusetts decide what the country wants?

No.
Right or wrong, correct or incorrect, it is what the country WANTS right now!

It is not what the country wants. It is what the conservatives want, and those the conservatives lied to.

Wraithlin February 1 2010 11:49 AM EST

If a below 50% in the polls means most of america wanted Bush out of office, it's not looking too good for Obama either as he's been dropping almost every month. It's really easy to know what most of america wants, here it is:

Healthy economy.

Nobody dying in wars.

Really those are the only two things you can actually say most of america wants. Sure you can try to say people also want low taxes, but I didn't add that above because half those people also want all the federal programs that require taxes to run, they just want them to magically appear out of thin air. Most of america, aside from the above two things, really have no clue what they actually want.

Oh and please take the second one literally. There are plenty of americans who for one reason or another think we should participate in conflicts and try to help other nations. However, there is only a very small minority that actually enjoy seeing news about soldiers dying, and those people are sick.

kevlar February 1 2010 11:51 AM EST

LB, I will go with your #1... because it's hilarious! The reason people don't know anything about the Bill, is because the Democrats didn't make the bill PUBLIC until after it was passed through the first gate! If knowing about the Bill was that important for acceptance, how come the people passing it aren't detailing it thoroughly to everyone? #2 is the point Ranger is making right now... they are beginning not to be the minority with all the shifts in the voting going on. Which is why Obama got backed into the corner he was in and prompted this latest attack on the GOP. When things don't go good for Obama, "switch on campaign mode". #3 has nothing to do with who is right or wrong... but the trend lately is that the majority feels that what is going on is WRONG.

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 11:59 AM EST

kevlar, I'm not talking to politicians, or pollsters, or to all of America.

I'm talking to a small group of people on this forum, and trying to actually have intelligent, rational discourse. That is not optimistic or idealistic. There is every reason to believe we could have such a conversation.

Now, Ranger arrives on the scene. Suddenly, we are told what all of America wants, we are told there is nothing that can possibly be discussed about it (unless that discussion is flat out agreement with whatever Ranger says), and we are polarized, once more. No common ground to be had. Worse -- not even an inkling of a reason to TRY to find common ground. Partisanship to the absolute max.

You think that's OK? You don't think that's something to speak out against?

Wraithlin February 1 2010 12:04 PM EST

So the right wingers of Massachusetts decide what the country wants?


I went to high school in MA and most of my extended family lives there. It is one of the most left-wing states in the US. The reason people are using the Scott Brown election as proof that people want change is because MA has always been over 60% democrat in every presidential election, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/ma.htm
and because the seat that Brown took has been democrat for like 30 years.

I'm not personally saying it's proof of anything, I personally think that he just campaigned alot better than the democrat he was running against, and was alot more charismatic. I just want you to be informed is all; Massachusetts is not right-wing.

kevlar February 1 2010 12:08 PM EST

No Sut, I don't think statements like that when you are not informed are good at all.

But Ranger's statement isn't a blanket. He is well aware of the polls and how they shift, is aware of the crucial elections going on, and sources many different sides of media. He isn't talking in generalization or thinking he knows everything himself... but is speaking on basis of the results lately.

I do respect what you mean though, and it would be so awesome to actually know what everyone wanted... the current way to estimate that though is through polling and elections.

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 12:31 PM EST

And I eschew that estimation when trying to have enlightening dialogue.

If you want generalizations, then go read them, and get on with your day. Don't hide behind them as if they are the end-all be-all of truth and justice. That simply isn't the case, and worse, such a viewpoint shuts down the possibility of further discourse.

But if you DO want to talk about polls or facts or why things happen, how about going back to the original post? Why did FOX news cut away from the broadcast before it was over? Oh wait, don't tell me: because that is what most Americans wanted?

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 12:36 PM EST

Good point, Wraithlin -- and that is just as likely an indicator that they simply voted for the better candidate in this particular election. I've not heard a lot of good things about the Democratic-party candidate, and I'm not just talking about the things Democrats said about her to simply distance themselves. In summary, the Scott Brown election isn't a bellwether for anything, in either direction, and to give it any such legitimacy is an exercise in agendaism.

To see the bigger picture, across "most of America", as it were, we need to wait until November. And yes, there very well could be a knee-jerk reaction back in favor of Republicans. That's my whole point here. I'm tired of rhetoric and policy being bounced around like a yo-yo. I'd like folks to keep an even head and really reason through things rather than just saying, "You SUCK! Oh wait, now YOU suck!"

ScY February 1 2010 1:14 PM EST

Not to copy paste a post I already made....


ScY 12:42 AM EST
RIGHT!

I forgot how the 'polls' and 'elections' have SOOOO much to do with polarity. I mean we can agree that the country is probably about 55% republican 45% democratic speaking from rough terms with about + or - 5% going either way. However Obama won that election by how much of a landslide? (Charisma had nothing to do with it either of course)

People don't like Obama's healthcare ideas right now. In my opinion, Obama's healthcare could use some improving. If most people in an area (state in this case) dont like Obama's idea and somebody says they will 1000% oppose it, 1+1=2, that person gets elected.

Very obvious answer to me: guy (who happens to be republican) voting (along party lines) against Obama, people happen to be (more or less rightly) against Obamacare so the guy who might as well be of the Tory party gets elected. "


Main points being he said what people wanted, was charismatic (or relatively so) and was more successful in running his election (add campaigns etc. ---if people know one candidate better than the other they are more likely to vote for the more known candidate)

ScY February 1 2010 1:18 PM EST

Then going past the main point of discussion which was my numbers which proved to be about correct -half-n-half- we find the part about whatshisface getting elected.

QBRanger February 1 2010 1:30 PM EST

And that is the problem with the Democratic party.

Instead of listening to the public, like how Scott Brown won in Mass, they think that they are not liberal enough. Time to push their policies more.

If a fairly democratic state such as Mass elected a Republican to replace Ted and who ran on stopping Obamacare, imagine how the populace feels in other states.

Typically a talking zombie who is Democrat would get elected to the Senate in Mass. Just look at the senators from that state for the past 30 years.

If the Democrats do not take this election as a sign that the populace is pissed off, then their party has little future.

And I will say what I see as what America wants. The polls and recent elections in VA, NJ and Mass show me easily how the country feels about Obama and his liberal policies.

One can easily say these policies are best for the country. And you are entitled to your opinions. However, most of the country disagree. And unless Obama changes course, the mid term elections will be a bloodbath for the democratic party.

Mikel February 1 2010 2:04 PM EST

Like it or not, the Dems have already wasted too much time to get their policies going and "most of America" wants a steady job to put food on the table for their family. Obama is failing to deliver in a timely manner. You think most of America would really even care what he was doing in office if they all had jobs and a full belly?

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] February 1 2010 2:13 PM EST

You know what I would like to see? I would like to see Sutekh and Ranger go into a room with 3 pieces of paper and two pencils. On all the pieces of paper, there are 10 unique traits or facts about a person in another room that they cannot see.

Ranger takes one piece of paper, and Sutekh takes one sheet of paper.

They cannot show each other what is written on their own pieces of paper, but they can both look at the 3rd piece of paper that is left.

Then, they should both write on the back of their papers their own description of the person in the other room. I'm guessing they will be completely different.

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 2:20 PM EST

Regardless of the differences, Ranger's assessment of the third person would be "obvious to even the most casual observer", and "most of America would agree".

Sutekh's assessment would be a meta-analysis of the overall process, and he would forget to even write anything down about the third person, defending his decision by saying he was "just trying to find common ground" and that he "doesn't care if life isn't fair."

Then someone would mention the exbow, and Ranger and Sutekh would shake hands.

QBRanger February 1 2010 2:23 PM EST

Sut,

What is your take on why Scott Brown was elected?

Was he that much better a candidate than Coakley?

So much better that a highly Democratic state elected a Republican for Ted's seat?

I see that election as a referendum on Obama and his policies. Which is why I use a broader statement like "most of America would agree".

But you are right in that almost all America would agree the exbow is utter crap.

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 2:26 PM EST

I have no take on it.

That's why I've no idea what "most of America" believes, and would never speak to such a thing.

However, when I do use superlatives like "most", "all", "everyone", "nothing", etc. there IS one thing that is almost certain: I am projecting my own thoughts and opinions onto other in order to feel better about my stance.

YMMNV.

TheHatchetman February 1 2010 2:28 PM EST

Write your congressman for Exbow reform? :P

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] February 1 2010 2:28 PM EST

Ranger do you know what I was trying to say with that last comment of mine?

AdminG Beee February 1 2010 2:42 PM EST

I've come to the conclusion that America is royally screwed.
The new deficit figure of $1.56trn is almost 11% of America's GDP.
Economists generally consider annual deficits of more than 3% to be unsustainable.

How the heck are you gonna buy your way out of this one? Which country is next on the war list to deflect everyone in the US's attention away from the fact that you're living outwith your means.

America will never learn, alas the UK has gone the same way.

Human beings are selfish individuals who want it all, and want it all now no matter the cost or consequence. We don't care about anyone other than ourselves and our immediate friends and families.

No one is asking why the US (and many countries in the West) are in such a state. Everyone is too busy playing politics and blaming each other.

US politics is just a celebrity game show folks, society is broken...

Until the majority realises that, then there's no fixing us. Don't hold your breath...

Mikel February 1 2010 3:53 PM EST

LOL Bee!
It's not that hard to figure out, but no one wants to take the first step cause they don't want to alienate voters.

First to create some serious jobs fast:

Triple the work force of the ICE, and start getting illegal immigrants out of this country.
Start fining Companies that hire illegal immigrants to help off set the costs of sending them back to their home countries.

There now, Jobs are starting to come back into demand for Legal workers.

And this is just one step that can be done.

There's a time when you just have to close the gates and get your own country back on track.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 1 2010 3:57 PM EST

Triple the work force of the ICE, and start getting illegal immigrants out of this country.

However, they'll just keep returning.

AdminG Beee February 1 2010 4:03 PM EST

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the part about blame culture.

Always someone else fault :)

QBRanger February 1 2010 4:28 PM EST

This article pretty much sums up most of what I feel about Obama:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029110104772360.html

The author is Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 4:29 PM EST

LB, I will go with your #1... because it's hilarious! The reason people don't know anything about the Bill, is because the Democrats didn't make the bill PUBLIC until after it was passed through the first gate!

No, it's because the Right told everyone there would be these shadowy "death panels" sending out armored vans to round up the elderly and send them to euthanasia camps. And that health care would be rationed (which actually still sounds better than no chance at health care at all like the underclass has now). And that it meant the first step in destroying our economy and handing it over to communist terrorists. It was all "socialism, blah blah, death panels, blah blah, where's his birth certificate, blah blah, Obama's secretly a muslim terrorist, blah blah, anyone who disagrees with us is un-American." The Democrats told everyone up front what the bill would do.

#2 is the point Ranger is making right now... they are beginning not to be the minority.

Sorry, but raising their numbers from a dismal 20% doesn't mean "no longer in the minority."

And if by "all the shifts in the voting" you are referring to the Scott Brown thing, I already addressed it once which Ranger failed to read, and I'm going to spell it out more clearly for him in a minute.

What is your take on why Scott Brown was elected? Was he that much better a candidate than Coakley?

And here we go.

Ranger, before December Coakley was far ahead in the polls. I don't have the numbers offhand, but I remember seeing the chart and she was ahead by a landslide. She was a popular Attorney General, well liked by the people, and appeared to be on her way to an easy victory.

Then, about a month before the election, she made a vicious mistake in deciding to rest on her high poll numbers and Ted Kennedy's name, and stopped campaigning. She for all intents and purposes just dropped out of the race. Scott Brown, on the other hand, was out there every day meeting the people and gathering votes. He ran a brilliant campaign, and even I tip my hat to him for pulling this off.

The liberal Democrats, who are in the majority in Massachusetts, were seemingly left without a candidate to support. They stayed home on election day, and the conservative minority, energized by a guy who ran a great campaign, came out and earned the victory.

This has nothing to do with LIBERALS from Massachusetts turning their backs on LIBERAL policies from a LIBERAL president. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard. They abandoned COAKLEY, not Obama, because she abandoned the campaign, and them. They didn't become conservative.

Enjoy your one-term Massachusetts senator. I don't see him lasting longer than that up there. The next Democrat won't run such a blunderingly stupid campaign.

Write your congressman for Exbow reform?

Heck yeah!

QBRanger February 1 2010 4:35 PM EST

This has nothing to do with LIBERALS from Massachusetts turning their backs on LIBERAL policies from a LIBERAL president. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard. They abandoned COAKLEY, not Obama, because she abandoned the campaign, and them. They didn't become conservative.

LB,

If you really truly believe this, you will be very unhappy come midterm elections.

Certainly Coakley ran a poor campaign, as did the Democrats in Washington who did not help her enough. However, have you read the exit polls?

It was the INDEPENDANTS who abandoned Coakley and the Democratic party.

Here is a good article for you to view to catch up with the times:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2010/01/19/scott-brown-fueled-by-independents-anger-at-liberal-arrogance

If the people of a mostly liberal state such as Mass feel this way, imagine how the rest of the right center leaning country feels.

I hope Obama and his advisors really believe as you do and continue to push their liberal agenda. Then in 2010 the Republican will win both the House and Senate.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] February 1 2010 4:43 PM EST

One could say the politics threads here on CB are a microcosm of the debates held at national levels.

Everyone has an opinion, nobody wants to cede ground to someone else because that's seen as weak. As an example:

Lets say Ranger makes a claim, that claim is refuted as wrong or inaccurate, rather then acknowledge that, he will either fight you with semantics until the point is muddled enough that it isn't clear who is right or wrong, or simply change the subject.

Then lets say Sutekh makes a point using a convincing set of facts, but his point is so general that it is hard to disprove, which makes debating the point difficult if not impossible.

Or even me, I will bring up a point and will shy away from data that might disprove my point and hold onto and promote data that does prove my point. Then I will use logic to 'falsely' bridge the gap in data.

What would be nice is if we could all go into that room, share all of the same data, then have some spirited discussion regarding it. As it is, there are entire TV networks dedicated to promoting facts that mesh well with a certain kind of world view, and shying away from facts that conflict with that world view.

AdminTitan February 1 2010 4:47 PM EST

In all reality Ranger, the 2010 elections won't change too much. About 2 senators should switch, and only about 15-20 Symbolically significant, but not really.

QBRanger February 1 2010 4:50 PM EST

Titan,

I really beg to differ.

I think the Republicans will pick up 30 seats in the House and 6-8 in the Senate. More if Obama continues on his liberal agenda, less if he becomes more centrist.

But his tone and rhetoric suggest he is staying his course.

AdminTitan February 1 2010 4:52 PM EST

Who have you talked to that believes those claims? I haven't heard one Political person I've talked to that thinks Republicans will pick up more than 4 senate seats.

AdminG Beee February 1 2010 4:57 PM EST

Miandrital February 1 2010 5:03 PM EST

QBRanger February 1 2010 5:03 PM EST

Here is one site, there are a few more I have to find again:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/2010-senate-race-map-prediction/question-846559/

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] February 1 2010 5:04 PM EST

The closest guy to being able to predict the future I've met has been this guy: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/. But honestly I think it doesn't matter. Thanks to the Internet and TV, it's really easy to find facts that reinforce what you already believe in while discrediting facts that say otherwise.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 5:12 PM EST

If you really truly believe this, you will be very unhappy come midterm elections.

The Democrats stand to lose several seats in the midterm in moderate stats and districts. This has nothing to do with Massachusetts.
It was the INDEPENDANTS who abandoned Coakley and the Democratic party.

It was certainly independents, but they were abandoning Coakley more than Obama's policies. Sure, there were factors that pushed independents a bit to the right (like Coakley's crap campaign), but if you're telling me the state's 1.6 million registered Democrats lost to the 490,000 Republicans because the people don't want health care, you're insane. The independents chose Brown mainly because there was no campaigning liberal candidate. Massachusetts has not leaned THAT far right to elect a Republican who had sufficient liberal opposition.
If the people of a mostly liberal state such as Mass feel this way, imagine how the rest of the right center leaning country feels.

There go your Fox News talking points again! Enough with the "this is a center right nation" crap.
I hope Obama and his advisors really believe as you do and continue to push their liberal agenda. Then in 2010 the Republican will win both the House and Senate.

This will happen if they don't push more liberal legislation through.

QBsutekh137 February 1 2010 5:26 PM EST

You almost got it right, Veri, except once TTP has elapsed (Time To Polarization) you won't even catch me trying to debate the topic any more. I'll be too busy try to stop folks from going or off the rails.

There is absolutely no point in debating _anything_ if true critical thinking, tolerance, and open-mindedness have already been overrun with polarization, band-wagoning, strawmen, false dichotomies, aversive schemas, etc. No point at all.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 5:28 PM EST

I'm still wondering why Ranger has not bothered to answer any of the questions I asked him on this thread, including the rather humble one about tort reform.

QBRanger February 1 2010 5:28 PM EST

LB,

Did you ever think that even with a super majority, including Lieberman (who was a democrat at one time), the problems getting legislation passed was in any way tied to the fact it was ultra liberal?

This will happen if they don't push more liberal legislation through.

I really hope they try. With all my heart. Then we can have a nice conservative Congress to stop this Obama madness.

Just as W was an ultra conservative and out of touch with mainstream America, Obama is on the same path from the opposite direction.

I am just shocked you think a more liberal adjenda is what America wants, even after the election in Mass.

I profoundly believe that if Obama stays on his liberal course, the democratic party may not recover for 6-8 years.

But then again, it is how I see things, and obviously you see it differently. That Obama has to push his liberal policies through for the betterment of America and everyone be dammed if they do not see how good they are. The public is just so stupid not to see how great his policies are.

Only time will tell. Soon, November is just around the corner.

QBRanger February 1 2010 5:29 PM EST

It is a long thread LB,

What are your questions? Including the one about tort reform.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 5:45 PM EST

Did you ever think that even with a super majority, including Lieberman (who was a democrat at one time), the problems getting legislation passed was in any way tied to the fact it was ultra liberal?

It's far from ultra liberal. Left of center would be more accurate.

If it was ultra liberal they would have went with a single payer system, which they should have.

The problem here is that you tend to categorize anything not conservative as ultra liberal, and the extreme right's policies including those passed under Bush as moderate.

And I already explained why that "super majority" isn't what you keep claiming it is. Not to mention that we need one to break through the obstructionists on the right who continue to push through bad ideas like the across-state-lines amendment, then complain when their bad ideas aren't adopted by those who know better.

And don't ever count Lieberman's sorry behind as one of us on the left. Liberals hate him.
I am just shocked you think a more liberal adjenda is what America wants, even after the election in Mass.

Enough with the election in Massachusetts. If you fail to understand that it wasn't a nationwide referendum on Obama and the left, just stop bringing it up altogether.

And unlike you, I said nothing about any of this "what America wants" nonsense. I care more about what it needs. And I firmly believe that if Obama's policies were able to take hold without interference from obstructionists' filibusters, by the next election he would have those independants back, and maybe a few more. Wake up. They're not abandoning him because he's doing the liberal things he said he was going to do on the campaign, they're abandoning him because your side won't let him do it. And they're too stupid to see that it's the Republicans' fault nothing is getting done.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 5:46 PM EST

What are your questions?

I will not repost them. Look through my posts, read them and respond. They were all direct responses to your posts.

TheHatchetman February 1 2010 6:00 PM EST

Here's a better question for the lot of yas...
What will it take to change your stance?


If you are weak in your stance and/or don't know enough that it would perhaps change if given more information, you have no business posting.

If you are confident in your stance and it's absolute correctness, you have no need to post, as those who agree can obviously see the correctness of your side. Those who disagree are obviously fools that need not be considered. And those on the fence are obviously too weak in their stance to rightly support your cause.


Basically,
Do we really need a thread like this every other week? We get it... Ranger's a conservative, Bob's a liberal. But do either feel as if they are actually changing anybody's mind or helping their cause in any way? Even a little?


Quoted my questions to make em easier to find.

Wraithlin February 1 2010 6:03 PM EST

It's far from ultra liberal. Left of center would be more accurate.

The problem here is that you tend to categorize anything not conservative as ultra liberal, and the extreme right's policies including those passed under Bush as moderate.


I don't have an arguement here, I just find it very amusing that in one line you say some liberal policy is basically moderate. And then two lines later you're bashing conservatives for calling thier conservative policies moderate.

Good times.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 6:25 PM EST

Hatch, if you don't like the thread, you don't have to post here or even read it. Moving on.
I just find it very amusing that in one line you say some liberal policy is basically moderate. And then two lines later you're bashing conservatives for calling thier conservative policies moderate.

There is a difference between a slight tilt in either direction and a hard grasp to an unwavering ideology. Socialism would be a far grasp at the extreme left. Democrats and other liberal trying to introduce government programs to promote a mixed economy is far closer to the center, though Ranger is not able to see a difference between a mixed economy and hard-left socialism.

The Republican party, especially the neo-conservatives within, are far closer to the extreme right than the Democrats are to the left (though of course not as extreme as, say, fascism). They don't want a moderate mixed economy (though traditionally many Republicans pre-neo-con takeover supported a limited version of this). They want a hard clutch toward laissez-faire capitalism, which is much further to the right than the Democrats' mixed economy is to the left.

TheHatchetman February 1 2010 6:34 PM EST

I was just simply asking why we need one of these every other week. So moving back to my question. Why?

QBRanger February 1 2010 6:42 PM EST

I will not repost them. Look through my posts, read them and respond. They were all direct responses to your posts.

If you do not have the courtesy to repost after I nicely asked, do not expect me to go through each post to answer.

The only one was something about small businesses and 250,000 a year income. You certainly realize that the 250k that small businesses will be taxed more on is the GROSS income. Not the net, not the take home pay of the owner. So the dry cleaner with 5 employees that GROSSES 400k a year is paying a higher tax on that GROSS income. Stifling hiring of new people and expansion options. And that is a way to stimulate jobs?

Democrats and other liberal trying to introduce government programs to promote a mixed economy is far closer to the center

What you smoking there Willis! More government tell people what to do is moving towards socialism.

They don't want a moderate mixed economy (though traditionally many Republicans pre-neo-con takeover supported a limited version of this).

Of course not. We want capitalism. With limited government interference. You have, for the most part, the ability to succeed in American. You do not need the government holding your hand every step of the way.

Certain cases government may be needed to kick start something but for the most part America is a "you can succeed if you try" country. I want to keep it that way.

I am sorry if you cannot succeed, but I have with a lot of determination, willpower, schooling, and sacrifice. I never expected anything to be given to me and have no problems earning what I want. But to tax successful people more due to the fact they succeeded is the antithesis of what America was built on.

Of course there are people who game the system (see Enron etc..) who should be rightfully punished, hard.

This will sound harsh, but if you want a liberal society, you can easily move to another country with its universal health care. I choose to stay in America since it is the last bastion of capitalism where you can succeed. But do not try to change the essence of America. The Scott Brown election should have showed all the Democrats that America will not stand for it.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 6:43 PM EST

I was just simply asking why we need one of these every other week. So moving back to my question. Why?

Generally because a conservative comes in here and starts popping off about liberals and socialism and whatnot. It's not just one person, but one tends to do it more than others. And I made a promise over a year ago that any unjustified slam on the left will be met with my rebuttal.

I normally don't start these threads, I just come in and defend my side. This time I decided to post a thread because it was a good, left wing counter to a lot of what gets said by conservatives around here, and I was hoping we would get some direct responses to the video. But our token wealthy conservative rarely responds directly to any point a liberal makes. He mostly just resorts to liberal bashing. Hence why I refused to repost my questions: I'm fed up with him failing to read and respond to anything, and instead just rehashing the same old tired rants.

QBRanger February 1 2010 6:48 PM EST

And I am quite fed up with the liberals expectation of getting everything handed to him by those who actually work hard for their money.

To have us taxed so he can siphon off the government and not produce anything that is a positive for society.

To enact liberal policies that obviously is rejected by America as proven by the recent elections in NJ, VA and Mass. I guess they were all poor Democratic candidates?

Cap and Trade, based upon false information driven by activist scientists.

Obamacare, dead in the water.

Card Check, why not give the unions the corporation. So much for hidden voting and ballots.

And the liberal list goes on and on.

Yes, LB, I can generalize also!

But to not re-ask the questions I missed is just plain insulting. I am sorry I did not go through your post line by line and pick out all the questions asked. I would be happy to answer them but o well.

TheHatchetman February 1 2010 6:53 PM EST

So quite simply, summed up from both of your explainations, you're trolling each other. Well done.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] February 1 2010 7:01 PM EST

Cap and Trade, based upon false information driven by activist scientists.


What is this?

QBRanger February 1 2010 7:13 PM EST

Cap and Trade or activist scientists?

You can look up Cap and Trade and find out what it is about.

Based upon the "science" of global warming, which every day is being debunked as a junk science lead by activist scientist who want to make the world as they see fit.

And Hatch, you do not need to view this thread if you do not want. It is now in debates.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 7:17 PM EST

You certainly realize that the 250k that small businesses will be taxed more on is the GROSS income. Not the net...

Right. This is to prevent an owner from overstating expenses to avoid taxes.

So the dry cleaner with 5 employees that GROSSES 400k a year is paying a higher tax on that GROSS income.

Right. And in my experience those five dry cleaner employees wouldn't cost the employeer 100k combined.

Also, lower taxes does not mean he's inclined to hire a sixth. In my experience small business owners hire new people out of necessity, not because they have enough money and are willing to shell out more money out of the goodness of their heart.

And that is a way to stimulate jobs?

new taxes means more spending on infastructure projects, more construction. More jobs for blue collar workers, so to and extent, yes, taxing and spending can stimulate job growth and the economy when your method of deregulatuion and high-risk free capitalism fails.

What you smoking there Willis! More government tell people what to do is moving towards socialism.

There you go with the socialism again. I take it you didn't read my post on that either?

Say it with me Ranger: a mixed economy. Extremes of socialism or capitalism are equally terrible.
Of course not. We want capitalism.

The right wing wants ultra-right capitalism. The left, remembering the prosperity of the Clinton years (ok, before NAFTA) wants our American mixed economy back. You know, back when it was even easier for middle classmen to rise up and succeed. After Bush what you describe is way too difficult.

Not socialism. Knock it off with the socialism.

I am sorry if you cannot succeed,

At this point I am microscopically close to breaking the PG rule. Don't you DARE insult me over your pathetic inability to gasp the bare bones basics of American economics.

This will sound harsh, but if you want a liberal society, you can easily move to another country with its universal health care.

If you want hard-right extreme conservatism, do us all a favor and move to Saudi Arabia. I'm going to stay right here and vote against the people who want Americans to fail so they can load up their pockets and trample the poor.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 7:28 PM EST

And I am quite fed up with the liberals expectation of getting everything handed to him by those who actually work hard for their money. ... To have us taxed so he can siphon off the government and not produce anything that is a positive for society.

Here, Ranger confused liberalism with socialism again, and calls liberals lazy. This is what he does.

To enact liberal policies that obviously is rejected by America as proven by the recent elections in NJ, VA and Mass.

Policies that were not enacted because Ranger's side are a bunch of obstructionists.

I guess they were all poor Democratic candidates?

Coakley was, as pointed out several, several times that you failed to acknowledge.

Virginia has traditionally leaned Republican, so no surprise there.

I cannot comment on New Jersey.

Cap and Trade, based upon false information driven by activist scientists.

False what now?

Obamacare, dead in the water.

Not quite, but the good parts were killed by Lieberman, a guy you claimed was on our side earlier in this thread.

Card Check, why not give the unions the corporation. So much for hidden voting and ballots.

Yay! This is a great thing!

But to not re-ask the questions I missed is just plain insulting.

I explained my reasons for not reposting. To ignore entire posts and continue with the same old rhetoric about how liberals are "lazy" is just plain insulting. You don't respond to anything of substance. It's just more Glenn Beck style rambling. I refuse to enable you in this way.

QBRanger February 1 2010 7:35 PM EST

If you want hard-right extreme conservatism, do us all a favor and move to Saudi Arabia.

Hello? SA is not a conservative country per American standards. Talk about putting words in someones mouth. It is a highly oppressive one.
Don't you DARE insult me over your pathetic inability to gasp the bare bones basics of American economics.

I completely understand it. Less taxes= more money for capital investments.

Say it with me Ranger: a mixed economy. Extremes of socialism or capitalism are equally terrible.

Why? Why involve the government in things when they only mess it up. Post office? DMV? Medicare? Social Security? All money losing propositions. Or is that what you want to make people more dependent on the government? I want less dependence on good ole Wash D.C. Once you start on the path to socialism people expect to get things handed to them and not work for it. You can deny it all you want, what Obama wants is pure socialism. Has he not stated he wanted a redistribution of wealth-numerous times? Seems your advocating that as well from what I read.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081014074144AAOa2Et
Plain to see.

Also, lower taxes does not mean he's inclined to hire a sixth. In my experience small business owners hire new people out of necessity, not because they have enough money and are willing to shell out more money out of the goodness of their heart.

In your experience in what? Running a small business, having to titrate hiring that new person vs lowering your own income to grow the business?

Businesses hire because they feel it will help them grow.

Taxing small businesses that GROSS 250k or more a year is a stupid idea. I know many small business owners and have been one myself. More taxes = less employees = less stimulation to the economy.

My wife's grandmother owns a kennel in St. Louis. With the uncertainty of new taxes, she is not hiring anyone new, but now working 18 hour days just to stay afloat.

new taxes means more spending on infastructure projects, more construction. More jobs for blue collar workers, so to and extent, yes, taxing and spending can stimulate job growth and the economy when your method of deregulatuion and high-risk free capitalism fails.

Yes, more money for unions to dig ditches, fill them up and start again. More jobs going to political cronies on both sides of the aisle.

Instead of letting companies invest their money in growing their business and hiring people for the long term?

There of course has to be some regulation to keep an even playing field. I never stated otherwise. But the government does nothing that lawyers do not do, that is mess everything up.

Please, show me a company or entity the government runs well except for the military and I will give you a lollipop. With a nice pat on the head.

Want more jobs, let people have money to hire.

But I really do hope Obama keeps his current path against the will of most of America. Then and only then can conservatives take back Congress in 2010 and restart America.

QBRanger February 1 2010 7:45 PM EST

Policies that were not enacted because Ranger's side are a bunch of obstructionists.

If any of the policies made any sense to conservatives, he would have gotten support, like his Afghan policy.

But his liberal agenda is not what conservatives stand for. So they will vote on on the liberal policies. No obstructionist there. Once Obama makes a good middle policy, he will get conservative support. And possibly help candidates win elections. So far he is ZERO for THREE.

Yay! This is a great thing!

So let me get this straight. You want Guido, Tony and Fat Lou getting the worker to sign the card check in front of everyone? Which is the opposite of the Australian ballot system that ensures everyone gets to vote without undo stress or influence. Are you really serious you want people to be able to see how you vote? Wow!

Not quite, but the good parts were killed by Lieberman, a guy you claimed was on our side earlier in this thread.

And that does not show you those "good parts" were too much for even a middle of the road "independent" like Lieberman. Come on man, if you could not get Lieberman to go for your health plan, could it not be a bit too liberal and overreaching?

False what now?

Climategate, all the new false data about the rainforests and Himalaya mountains? The stifling of all dissenting opinions. Yes, global warming is being disproved every day. Soon Al Gore will give his Nobel back.

I explained my reasons for not reposting.

Lazy is as lazy does not do. I asked nicely for you to repost your questions and you do not even have the courtesy to do so.

TheHatchetman February 1 2010 8:07 PM EST

Ah yes, it is in Debates, and I don't have to click it, so civil discussion and logical argument are not required. My apologies gentlemen. Please excuse my rationality.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 8:20 PM EST

SA is not a conservative country per American standards.

It's a bunch of super-wealthy tycoons lording over a population of poor folks. And it's ultra religious! Sounds like exactly what the neo-cons want.

I completely understand it.

You still fail to understand that a mixed economy is not a hard-left grasp at socialism. You still fail to see that hard-right capitalism is not good for the middle and under classes, and that the so called "American Dream" became more difficult to achieve under the Bush years.

Why involve the government in things when they only mess it up. Post office?

On the last thread we did this I asked why you were against the post office. I never got a response.

This is why I got angry and refused to repost the questions. You never read or responded to them the first time. You rarely ever directly respond to anyone's point, or questions.

And I see no problem with the post office. "It costs us money" is not, in my opinion, a good enough reason to dismantle it.

Another question: would you abolish the FBI? Local and state police and fire departments? They're "socialist" entities as well.

Medicare? Social Security?

Both need to be fixed, not discarded and privatized.

Or is that what you want to make people more dependent on the government?

Not more dependent. I just want it there for the people who need it and have no other option.

Once you start on the path to socialism ..

*groan*

You can deny it all you want, what Obama wants is pure socialism.

False, as stated by himself many, many, many, many, many, many, times.

Has he not stated he wanted a redistribution of wealth-numerous times?

No he hasnt. That video was taken so far out of context it's facepalm-worthy. He was talking about individuals not hoarding wealth like the upper one percent does, but instead using it to create jobs and better compensate workers. He was not talking about government stepping in, taking everyone's money, then redistributing it. And NOTHING he has proposed looks anything like that.

*facepalm*

And before you say it, no, progressive taxation is not a redistribution of wealth.

And for the record, in the early days of the recession, I personally WOULD have been in favor of a small redistribution, similar to the stimulus checks Bush enacted. But we're already slowly recovering (as he said we would: slowly) and so I think this is no longer necessary.

In your experience in what? Running a small business,

I have experience with several small businesses. When taxes are low and profits roll in, the owners are the first to get a raise. No new workers, no raises for employees. This is my own personal experience, not a global rule. I'm just saying your point that a small business owner WILL hire more with low taxes alone as a factor is flawed. There are several factors that go into an owner hiring or not. Look at the Clinton years.

And now I see that I failed to make that point clearly last time, so that was my bad.

Taxing small businesses that GROSS 250k or more a year is a stupid idea.

Admittedly, if it was me the number would probably be raised a bit. But on small businesses, not individuals.

My wife's grandmother owns a kennel in St. Louis. With the uncertainty of new taxes, she is not hiring anyone new, but now working 18 hour days just to stay afloat.

She makes 250k and still can't afford ONE part time worker? Hmm. How much of that does she take home?

Yes, more money for unions to dig ditches, fill them up and start again. More jobs going to political cronies on both sides of the aisle.

I see more jobs for blue collar workers, hence more purchasing, less debt, hence more production, hence more jobs, hence more purchasing, less debt, hence more production...

Instead of letting companies invest their money in growing their business and hiring people for the long term?

The stimulus providing for more infrastructure jobs IS thinking long term.

There of course has to be some regulation to keep an even playing field. I never stated otherwise.

Fair. Sometimes we both get so caught up in defending our sides that we forget we're not cookie-cutter spokesmen for our parties' platforms.

Please, show me a company or entity the government runs well except for the military and I will give you a lollipop.

The post office. *grin*

And I don't think the military is run that well. At the top at least.

QBRanger February 1 2010 8:28 PM EST

On the last thread we did this I asked why you were against the post office. I never got a response.

Do you not read? That question was answered by someone else, Titan I believe. There was no reason for me to restate the exact answer he did. Do not blame me for you not reading the post. But this shows that sometimes one gets things lost in a such a long thread. So no harm in me asking for a restatement of your questions. Just you refusing to do so, showing how lazy you libs are.

The post office loses money, tons of it each year.

Here is an article:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/03/news/companies/usps_postal_service_privatize.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009080314

From CNN so you cannot say it is from Fox or any other conservative entity. And they advocate privatization of mail service. AKA NO government control or involvement. I can get into other reasons it loses so much money, IE unions, but that would just make you so happy to see union employees gaming the US to make money for themselves doing very little to earn it.

Gee, if healthcare is run like the post office, the US will go bankrupt very quickly.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 8:31 PM EST

So they will vote on on the liberal policies. No obstructionist there.

Right. Filibustering everything is obstructionist. Nobody is forcing them to vote yes, certainly not me.

You want Guido, Tony and Fat Lou getting the worker to sign the card check in front of everyone?

This isn't the days of Jimmy Hoffa, Ranger. The mob doesn't run my union.

Are you really serious you want people to be able to see how you vote?

I've got nothing to hide, even if I opposed unions, which I don't.

I see your point, but I think this is an overreaction. The right doesn't want secret ballot to help workers, they want it to help corporations.

And that does not show you those "good parts" were too much for even a middle of the road "independent" like Lieberman.

I have no respect for Lieberman. As stated above, I've hated him since I was 12, and I'm no young man anymore. I think he's as bad as Boehner and Cantor and Michelle Bachmann. I can't wait to get him out of that office. Connecticut won't vote for him again in two years.

Climategate, ..

I'm going to leave this to the experts, but every time I see the right claim the data is false, I immediately see an article of the left refuting the right's article. This includes the article you posted months back on the antarctic ice sheets.

Lazy is as lazy does not do.

Says the guy too lazy to go back and read the posts. *grin*

Hatch, as stated, if you don't like this thread, don't click on it.

QBRanger February 1 2010 8:37 PM EST

It's a bunch of super-wealthy tycoons lording over a population of poor folks. And it's ultra religious! Sounds like exactly what the neo-cons want.

Excuse me!

I want freedom of religion. Freedom to say and do what you want within normal boundaries. Nothing like Saudi Arabia. And nothing like the socialistic state you and Obama want.
No he hasnt. That video was taken so far out of context it's facepalm-worthy. He was talking about individuals not hoarding wealth like the upper one percent does, but instead using it to create jobs and better compensate workers. He was not talking about government stepping in, taking everyone's money, then redistributing it. And NOTHING he has proposed looks anything like that.

Of course he did. Barack Obama said, モWe need to share the wealth with everyone!ヤ this was while on the campaign trail in 08.

Where is the taking out of context? You can try to Obama's agenda, but it is there for all to see. Socialism at its core. Obama was a student of the teachings of Saul Alinsky a radical socialist.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 9:45 PM EST

I want freedom of religion.

Most conservatives would prefer freedom of Christianity, like Sarah Palin.

My point is, if you want to post ludicrous, asinine statements assigning me an opinion like...
And nothing like the socialistic state you and Obama want.

..this mind-numbingly brainless, trolling piece of crap, or your half-witted "bleH, BOb aRe not sMrt ENuf 2 sUCksEeD anD r LayZeE" I'll be the first to do the same. I have no tolerance for it, and I'll not stand for it.

Where is the taking out of context?

Right where Fox News told you to. Show me one bill Obama has introduced that is a direct redistribution of wealth. Be wary of those that I already told you don't count. He was saying things are better when the wealthy doesn't get to hoard 99% of the nations wealth, like the last time a Democrat held the presidency.

QBRanger February 1 2010 9:55 PM EST

Show me one bill Obama has introduced that is a direct redistribution of wealth.

The Health Care Bill. It is so flawed in that respect. Get me a real health care bill that fixes the actual problems and I will be the first to support it.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 9:59 PM EST

The Health Care Bill.

Giving poor people health care isn't redistributing wealth, but I'm willing to hear you explain your position.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 10:02 PM EST

Better than that: please explain what specific examples of the Senate health bill you are against. I know you are against the package as a whole, but I also know you support things like banning companies from excluding for pre-existing conditions and cherry picking. So, what about it makes you so vehemently opposed to it?

AdminTitan February 1 2010 10:02 PM EST

The Stimulus Bill, which was God awful (not for the redistribution of wealth, that part doesn't bother me too much).

Lord Bob February 1 2010 10:04 PM EST

Titan:
It was big, for sure, but what -specifically- did you oppose about it enough to make you oppose the whole bill?

AdminTitan February 1 2010 10:24 PM EST

Basically two reasons, one, its ineffectiveness and, two, its cost.

Lord Bob February 1 2010 10:29 PM EST

Thank you Titan!

Basically two reasons, one, its ineffectiveness and

Actually, it was effective. It was never meant to restore the economy in full, but to stem the bleeding and begin the turnaround. It did that.

On the cost issue: NOBODY wanted to spend $787 billion on a recovery bill *grin*. But it was necessary given the urgency of the situation.

AdminTitan February 1 2010 10:35 PM EST

I haven't really believed most of the "turn around" idea. I mean, I know we can never be sure, maybe unemployment would have dropped to %15 without it. I doubt it. If it truly did help, them maybe, it would have been worth the cost. I'm not sure. But, since it's literally, literally, impossible to prove me that it was effective, it's kind of sort of useless to talk about it :). (Not saying I can prove its ineffectiveness either, I just like to be a cynic.)

QBRanger February 1 2010 10:45 PM EST

1. The cutting of 500B from Medicare.
2. The loss of Medicare Advantage.
3. The lack of tort reform.
4. The lack of allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines.
5. Increased taxes for small businesses/individuals making over 250k a year.
6. Fear of progression to socialized medicine. Although the Obama plan is not socialized medicine, it appears it is the first step towards implementing a one payer system in the future.
7. The 900+B cost.
8. America, unarguably, was founded on the principles of absolute minimalist government, both economically and socially, and was intended to be run as capitalistically as possible.
9. Special deals like the ones NE and LA. And the special exemption for the unions on the excise tax.

HR 3200 has some great ideas, like preventing insurance company abuse but the overall content of the bill is not acceptable.

I see this bill as nothing more than a government grab at 1/6th the GDP. Trying to get more government oversight with more layers of bureaucracy and more government jobs created. More paper pushers and more middle level manangement positions who have the authority to oversee 1/6 the GDP making decisions about patient care with little to no experience in the field of medicine.

Analogous to the government taking over something as broad as the housing sector, builders included and telling them how to build a house, where to build a house and with what specific materials to build it with. Not like now with the current laws but actually taking it over with specific departments designed to make all decisions.

This bill, even by Democrats acknowledgment is the first step to government controlled health care. I keep reading that they have to pass HR 3200 and then they can add onto it what more they want, like the public option and then move towards universal healthcare.

As a physican that scares me beyond belief.

ScY February 2 2010 11:12 PM EST

"Climategate, all the new false data about the rainforests and Himalaya mountains? The stifling of all dissenting opinions. Yes, global warming is being disproved every day. Soon Al Gore will give his Nobel back. "

Really?





Really?!?! Go ask a scientist!


On a different note, how do you make those cool quote thingies.

QBRanger February 2 2010 11:17 PM EST

Yes really. The data has been corrupted and every day something new is coming about how the snow is not melting by 2035 in the Himalayas, or how the rainforests will not be 40% wiped out by global warming.

On a side note:
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002wgy

ScY February 2 2010 11:24 PM EST

So data came out about how global warming (whatever the credibility of the data is) is not going to be so extreme, so therefore it doesnt exist and will have no effect on the world?

ScY February 2 2010 11:24 PM EST

On a side-note: awesome

QBRanger February 2 2010 11:35 PM EST

We can chat about global warming in another thread if you wish. But until they start to have adequately peer reviewed articles on the subject, using all the data and not just what fits their hypothesis, I have doubts about whether global warming is as critical a subject to require all the money spent on "greening" the planet. Including the time, effort and carbon footprint required to have global conferences on the subject.

We can certainly be spending money and giving awards based upon something that may mean very little to the future of this planet. Possibly based upon flawed data and negligent scientists.

Just to satisfy someones power grab.

Lord Bob February 3 2010 12:12 AM EST

2. The loss of Medicare Advantage.
3. The lack of tort reform.
4. The lack of allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines.

I'm ok with these things.

5. Increased taxes for small businesses/individuals making over 250k a year.

I'm ok with this too, but again I may have increased the cap for small businesses.

6. Fear of progression to socialized medicine.

I'm very ok with this. Health care is one area where I'd love a more socialized approach. I'm far to the left of Obama or congressional Democrats on this.

Although the Obama plan is not socialized medicine,

It's good to see you finally admit this.

8. America, unarguably, was founded on the principles of absolute minimalist government, both economically and socially, and was intended to be run as capitalistically as possible.

This I think is irrelevant. I'll take practicality over ideology any day. Also, to the best of my knowledge nowhere in the Constitution does it enshrine pure, unmixed capitalism as THE one and true economic system on the United States. And even if it did, this are the same guys who came up with the 3/5ths clause, so the myth that the founders were these infallible prophets is exactly that: a myth.

This bill, even by Democrats acknowledgment is the first step to government controlled health care. I keep reading that they have to pass HR 3200 and then they can add onto it what more they want, like the public option and then move towards universal health care.

I'm hoping that's true, and that's exactly why I'm supporting this first step in that direction.

Lord Bob February 3 2010 12:22 AM EST

To get back on topic, and because there has been a lot of good Jon Stewart stuff going around here lately: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/stewart-hammers-fox-news_n_445575.html

QBRanger February 3 2010 12:32 AM EST

And that LB is where we greatly differ.

I see a government that has never run anything successfully. They are always over budget and are very mismanaged.

What makes anyone think that the government can run something as big as healthcare any better than the post office, or the DMV, or Social Security, or Medicare?

Let the government run 16% of the GDP is a recipe for disaster.

And if a single payer system is so great and everyone gets the best care explain this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/02/canadian-province-premier-bails-on-single-payer-system-for-surgery/

The article is from a left leaning site, however the content is indisputable.

Now I have a few other questions:

Why are you against letting insurance companies compete across state lines? Your auto insurance can.

And I see you left out my points about its 900B+ cost and the 500B in Medicare cuts and the special deals that were made. Are you ok with that also? You do realize that Florida receives a special exemption to allow Medicare Advantage in 3 counties.

Is it a "get something done no matter how bad the bill is" approach? No matter how flawed and corrupt the bill actually is? No matter the cost and inefficient the bill is at providing quality care at an affordable cost.

You do realize the "new" mammographic guidelines from the USPSTF were the first step in the rationing of healthcare and a test of how the public would accept such a cost control mechanism. And how the public quickly responded with utter disdain for these rationing guidelines. If Obamacare and Socialistic medicine come to American that is the future. Panels of non specialists making these decisions instead of your doctor.

As you know, no oncologist or radiologist or surgeon is on the USPSTF.
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/USpstfab.htm

And I expect an answer to every question I asked in this post. And I will not ask them again even if you miss 1 or 2 no matter how nicely you ask.

QBRanger February 3 2010 12:37 AM EST

Jon Stewart was excellent as always.

I understand why Fox cut away but think they were a bunch of pansies for doing so.

Just like MSNBC was for cutting away from the Scott Brown victory speech.

Still does not take away from Fox trampling CNN and MSNBC in the ratings for 15 months in a row and counting :)

Lord Bob February 3 2010 1:06 AM EST

I see a government that has never run anything successfully. They are always over budget and are very mismanaged.

The thing is, I see many large corporations the same way. The insurance companies are among the worst of the worst. I trust even a bloated, inefficient government better than them. At least I and the rest of the lower middle class has a say in who runs the government.

Let the government run 16% of the GDP is a recipe for disaster.

The idea is to make it less than 16%

Why are you against letting insurance companies compete across state lines?

As noted by several articles I've read, and the video in the initial post, this allows big companies to circumvent state laws, leading to more cherry picking, oligarchy, etc. I want the insurance companies weaker at least, not stronger.

Your auto insurance can.

I don't much care for them either. Michigan's auto insurance laws - written, of course, by the insurance companies - are just despicable.

Let's just say I have personal experience dealing with those buttholes.

And I see you left out my points about its 900B+ cost and the 500B in Medicare cuts

On purpose. I'm not going to comment on the 500 billion in Medicare cuts because I haven't heard both sides of that one.

I will say that I'd be fine with cutting 500 billion from the elderly to help insure low income young adults, including students. Sorry, but the "seniors, women, and children first" argument has never held much weight with me. It's why I didn't vote for Hillary in the primary.

On the 900 billion dollar cost, you'll note I'm not as opposed to spending as you are if it's for a good cause.

and the special deals that were made.

On the surface I'm with you on this. But again, I'd rather have more information from both sides before taking a stand.

Is it a "get something done no matter how bad the bill is" approach?

Though I think you're trolling me again with that statement, I'll answer. I'm taking more of a "one small step in the right direction is better than no step at all." I'm not 100% pleased with the Senate bill either if you haven't noticed, though for the opposite reasons you are. You think it goes too far, I don't think it goes far enough. I'd rather have the House version, but crappy Lieberman killed that, the bum. Like I said in my last post, I'm looking at it as getting our foot in the door for improvements down the line.

And I expect an answer to every question I asked in this post.

You'll get what I give you, and not an ounce more than you've given yourself. You're the last person entitled to make such demands.

Lord Bob February 3 2010 1:08 AM EST

Just like MSNBC was for cutting away from the Scott Brown victory speech.

Hey, Stewart ripped MSNBC in that video too! And it was the funniest joke of the segment.

Still does not take away from Fox trampling CNN and MSNBC in the ratings for 15 months in a row and counting

And bad reality shows also have high ratings.

Lord Bob February 3 2010 1:14 AM EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/obama-will-do-another-qa_n_446427.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/obama-interested-in-telev_n_446270.html

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] February 3 2010 3:48 AM EST

You know what's pretty odd about that Q&A thing? I think it's a win-win for everyone. The legislators get to debate directly with the President about real issues (well, we hope so anyways) and the President gets to bring up issues directly with the legislators. This kind of thing is only good for democracy.

Wouldn't it be awesome if they had a "going through health care bill" Q&A that allowed all the senators to get their concerns on the table, and then have some logistics-legal guys there to say "Yes, we can change it to this in the next revision" and have some follow up meetings. This stuff is pretty exciting actually.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002zF0">Obama Kicks GOP Butt</a>