Get over it Conservatives, Obama was "elected by a majority of the popular vote twice!"

Uh, excuse me -- but don't you think it might be a good idea to refrain from making uninformed assumptions before ignorantly popping off and casting aspersions? That might help you avoid looking like an obnoxious jackass.

What's this "your party" crap? When did I say that I'm a Republican? In fact, I've been extremely critical of the Republican Party's disingenuous demagoguery and intellectual vacuousness, and have stated repeatedly that I believe that the G.O.P. needs to undertake serious reform before it should be considered viable as a party. In my view, it needs new blood and a new message.

For instance, in this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=576357

...I posted a link to this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/op...=2&ref=opinion&

...which, in my opinion, thoroughly destroys the credibility of Paul Ryan's "budget plan."

I know it seems to be a common practice around here to obnoxiously pop off without having any idea what the hell you're talking about. But please try to refrain from doing so in the future, OK?

Now if you want to prove that you belong in this debate, why don't you start by pointing out any false statements I may have made.

(Opinions with which you disagree don't count; tell me what I said that you think is patently false.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Pop off? I go by what is in this thread. I don’t care what you said before. In this thread, you claimed “The president who is the subject of your idolatry is the one who called for the commission, remember? And then he simply ignored it.”. That is incorrect. Ryan is an incidental in the link I provided. The link states the President’s role in the commission’s decision. You said the commission was ignored by Obama.
That is a lie.

Or tell me how it isn’t.

I admit I assumed you were a repub because you used a bald face lie that they use as a standard talking point. My mistake. I should have said you as an individual were using a bald faced lie. I stand corrected.

PS Nice try at dodging your statement in the previous post. Does this mean you have no response?

The only people who fear....or even talk about civil unrest, are the pretend "conservatives".

The degree of contempt that real conservatives view the chicken little crowd with surpasses the level of my contempt for them.

They just cost you an election. Remember? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

"They Cost me the election" No I didn't loose an election. Iam not like some of these fanatic conservatives that some may think are going crazy over Obama's reelection. Thats not me. I don't waste my time waiting for Political people to make my life better. I prepare to endure the mistakes they will inevitably make.

So this is not about the topic? It's about your party affiliation. Right?

Just checking. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That's what his response looked like to me.

Yes. Obama won. Get over it. I will not support him nor will I wish him luck so long as he continues his anti-Liberty agenda. But he did win. I see no reason to change my mind just because the wrong person was elected.

You said the commission was ignored by Obama.


That is a lie.


Or tell me how it isn’t. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

OK, here's what I believe to be a quick rundown of the facts:

The link you posted did not work for me, but if it's the politifact.com piece I saw a couple of months ago, it notes -- among other things -- that Ryan is guilty of hypocricy since he voted against the commission's findings. As I recall, the reasons he gave for his "no" vote were that Simpson-Bowles didn't go far enough to control health care costs, did not eliminate the new health care law, and increased tax revenues too much for his tastes. Be that as it may, it didn't get enough votes to be formally endorsed.

However, that does not mean that the president could not have picked up on the commission's findings and gotten the ball rolling on serious deficit-reduction debate! My earlier point was that I believe that if he did not like Simpson-Bowles, he should have advanced a fiscal sustainability plan of his own, whether patterned more or less similarly to Simpson-Bowles or not. But he simply moved on and promoted no plan at all, other than to raise taxes on about the top 2% of the income strata to Clinton-era levels, which wouldn't do very much to reduce the deficit. And he has proposed nothing in the way of spending cuts or entitlement reforms.

It looks pretty clear to me that Obama has no interest in using any of the plans out there -- Simpson-Bowles, Domenici-Rivlin, or anything else -- and has just chosen to move blithely on. If you disagree, then please tell me what sort of plan you think he might endorse or pursue.

PS Nice try at dodging your statement in the previous post. Does this mean you have no response? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Not sure what you're referring to here. I think I said several things in that post. If you'll quote the pertinent snippet, I'll try to answer.

Might have to wait until tomorrow, though. Although I'm feeling sort of insomniac right now, I had some people over to the house earlier and drank way, way too much Bordeaux! So now it's time for some sleep.

I don't think the threat of Civil unrest has ever been quite this great. Originally Posted by acp5762

You obviously were not around during the Vietnam War era!

You obviously were not around during the Vietnam War era! Originally Posted by bigtex

I was Ten. Why?

You obviously were not around during the Vietnam War era! Originally Posted by bigtex

Heh, those righty-thghties just say anything in their limp-dicked efforts to make any point. Ha! They can't deal with majority rule simply because they are so seldom the beneficiaries of majority support. And when they are, they get so drunk on the moment they screw the pooch by over reaching. Face it, they are lousy at governing due to lack of experience.

"They Cost me the election" No I didn't loose an election. Iam not like some of these fanatic conservatives that some may think are going crazy over Obama's reelection. Thats not me. I don't waste my time waiting for Political people to make my life better. I prepare to endure the mistakes they will inevitably make. Originally Posted by acp5762

Like I have said many times, I am an "anti" person. I am not pro-Obama, I was anti-palin and now I am anti-Romney. The anti-Obama people should drop to their knees and thank God Romney lost. The scope of his lack of character and monumental post election meltdown are clear indicators of what his Presidency would have been like.

The idea that Sarah palin might actually become President should have terrified every voter in America.

Thank God it terrified the 20% that mattered.

If you plan on making your life better, wouldn't it be more in your interests to adopt a "if it rains lemons, make lemonade" mindset?

Being free means I don't have to endure anything. I am totally responsible for my actions. I obey or break laws as I see fit.

I will always be me, no matter who "they" are.

I was Ten. Why? Originally Posted by acp5762

A little thing called "Kent State".

I was Ten. Why? Originally Posted by acp5762

You were "ten" then? That is somewhat of a surprise. Were you living under a rock? Your responses in this thread led me to believe you are only 18 or 19 today!

Allow me to take you back in time, ok? There was widespread civil unrest throughout the 60's and early 70's. We have nothing closely resembling that today. Abroad, there was the Cold War and the very real threat of total nuclear destruction. There was also a very unpopular war that resulted in 60,000 of our young men dying. To make matters worse nobody seemed to understand what those young men were fighting for.

Domestically, there were assassination's of our nation's leading political figures (including the President of the United States and later his brother) as well as Civil Rights leaders (such as the Rev. Martin Luther King). There was mass rioting on our nation's college campuses (see the aforementioned reference to Kent State University). Not to mention the rioting that occurred in our nation's streets, especially in the racially divided Deep South.

There were African Americans denied basic human rights such as not being able to sit in the front of the bus or eat in a restaurant on Main Street. Oftentimes, the African Americans were not even allowed to use the same public restrooms. Yes, I do recall the "Whites Only, Colored to the rear" signs!

And you try to compare the events from the 60's and 70's to today? Today's struggles are more internal in nature, primarily within the Republican Party as they try to sort out the reasons they have lost 2 elections in a row to a person they are convinced is an African American Muslim, born in Kenya!

Everything will be ok! We will just allow time for you guys to sort out your prejudices internally.

OK, here's what I believe to be a quick rundown of the facts:

The link you posted did not work for me, but if it's the politifact.com piece I saw a couple of months ago, it notes -- among other things -- that Ryan is guilty of hypocricy since he voted against the commission's findings. As I recall, the reasons he gave for his "no" vote were that Simpson-Bowles didn't go far enough to control health care costs, did not eliminate the new health care law, and increased tax revenues too much for his tastes. Be that as it may, it didn't get enough votes to be formally endorsed.

However, that does not mean that the president could not have picked up on the commission's findings and gotten the ball rolling on serious deficit-reduction debate! My earlier point was that I believe that if he did not like Simpson-Bowles, he should have advanced a fiscal sustainability plan of his own, whether patterned more or less similarly to Simpson-Bowles or not. But he simply moved on and promoted no plan at all, other than to raise taxes on about the top 2% of the income strata to Clinton-era levels, which wouldn't do very much to reduce the deficit. And he has proposed nothing in the way of spending cuts or entitlement reforms.

It looks pretty clear to me that Obama has no interest in using any of the plans out there -- Simpson-Bowles, Domenici-Rivlin, or anything else -- and has just chosen to move blithely on. If you disagree, then please tell me what sort of plan you think he might endorse or pursue.



Not sure what you're referring to here. I think I said several things in that post. If you'll quote the pertinent snippet, I'll try to answer.

Might have to wait until tomorrow, though. Although I'm feeling sort of insomniac right now, I had some people over to the house earlier and drank way, way too much Bordeaux! So now it's time for some sleep. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It is impossible to keep up with every position, quote or result of action by anyone but myself. I rely on Politifact as a major source for many reasons but the by far most important is simple.

They admit and correct their errors.

Many on this board claim they are biased or giving incorrect information. Funny though how they never prove them wrong. If those same members could get past their own bias, they would see that the site punches holes in the President’s positions too. And it all comes back to a central point. If you eliminate the bullshit claims, there is plenty to discuss. Those members don’t seem to want to discuss real issues.
They wallow in the bullshit like a dog on a dead muskrat.

The particular link includes Ryan but he is a side-bar to my point.
Like I thought I had clearly stated, you said the President ignored the commission’s recommendations. That is not true.
I don’t care what you said before or after unless it is needed for context of the statement.
You know that the only recommendations the repubs would back were their own.
What could he have done besides capitulate to them and thus ending any chance at governing with credibility from then on?

I don’t pretend to know.

I do know that the statement you made is not true.

I do know that there can’t be a real debate when your statement is a starting point.

I do know the gop had no intentions of compromise (but you notice they sure do now. Now that American opinion lays the blame at their door for the impasse) then. You knew that too.

But you still made the statement.

Well, OK, I hope you can get over 8-9% unemployment as far as the eye can see, higher taxes, High energy and commodity prices, and an ever increasing roll for government at all levels in your business and personal life. - And we are very lucky if that is all we have to suffer through.

You were "ten" then? That is somewhat of a surprise. Were you living under a rock? Your responses in this thread led me to believe you are only 18 or 19 today!

Allow me to take you back in time, ok? There was widespread civil unrest throughout the 60's and early 70's. We have nothing closely resembling that today. Abroad, there was the Cold War and the very real threat of total nuclear destruction. There was also a very unpopular war that resulted in 60,000 of our young men dying. To make matters worse nobody seemed to understand what those young men were fighting for.

Domestically, there were assassination's of our nation's leading political figures (including the President of the United States and later his brother) as well as Civil Rights leaders (such as the Rev. Martin Luther King). There was mass rioting on our nation's college campuses (see the aforementioned reference to Kent State University). Not to mention the rioting that occurred in our nation's streets, especially in the racially divided Deep South.

There were African Americans denied basic human rights such as not being able to sit in the front of the bus or eat in a restaurant on Main Street. Oftentimes, the African Americans were not even allowed to use the same public restrooms. Yes, I do recall the "Whites Only, Colored to the rear" signs!

And you try to compare the events from the 60's and 70's to today? Today's struggles are more internal in nature, primarily within the Republican Party as they try to sort out the reasons they have lost 2 elections in a row to a person they are convinced is an African American Muslim, born in Kenya!

Everything will be ok! We will just allow time for you guys to sort out your prejudices internally. Originally Posted by bigtex

Of course I remember all that. I was almost six when JFK was assasinated. Iam talking civil duress due to economic callapse, Martial Law.

Relax, CM.

For your information, I do not prattle sir, but sometimes I just rattle your little mouse cage.

As to what plan I'd like to see. It would be pretty much the opposite of what Bush did.

Here's an outline of my 8 point plan for the country:

1. Don't start unnecessary wars.

2. Don't give more tax cuts to the rich.

3. Invest in infrastructure.

4. Develop alternative energy sources.

5. Trim the bloated defense spending.

6. Invest in schools.

7. Calm the market.

8. Improve the economy.

. . . That's how you dig this country out of the economic hole Bush left us in.

Excuse me, but aren't you the guy who continually prattles on about how Obama is "digging us out of the deep hole" left by GWB, when it's obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking that he's digging a much deeper hole? Have you noticed our current deficit spending run rate, or have you been living in a cave for four years?

The president who is the subject of your idolatry is the one who called for the commission, remember? And then he simply ignored it.

Personally, I would prefer to modify the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan in a number of ways, but suggest that at the very least it could be the starting point for the debate over our looming fiscal abyss.

Fast Gunn, if you're that offended by the mere mention of Simpson-Bowles, why don't you tell us what sort of plan you would like to see.

Go ahead, please enlighten us! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight