So, how is Obama doing? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 12-17-2010, 02:11 PM

Hmm... I kind of find myself agreeing with Ace's last post here. It all relates back to my first campaign boss and what he called his Grand Unified Theory of American Politics: "We like winners and don't like wussies. Act like a winner."

Now I can't go so far as to say any "give and take" is wrong. Negotiating has its place - politics isn't as simple as a price range, but is instead more like a prioritized list of demands. Conceding one demand in order to get support for the other, more important, demands can be an acceptable practice.

My problem with Obama (and Democrats in general) is that they don't act confident while making these negotiations with Republicans, even when they are the ones in power, and even when the polls show the American people support their agenda (despite Fox News' assertions otherwise). Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party currently represents a much wider range of political philosophies than the Republican party, so I get that it's not so simple as saying all the Democrats should vote for the Democratic agenda. Nonetheless, when you have the presidency and a majority in chambers, you need to act - as a party - like you have that power. Yes, the filibuster rule is totally broken, and it's absurd that Republican obstructionism has forced a de facto requirement of 60 votes in the senate to pass most bills, but a party with as much power as the Democrats had should embrace that fight and highlight that obstructionism. Instead, they mentioned it infrequently and without urgency, making it look like they were complaining instead of shedding light on abusive practices of the opposition.

Even now, as Obama says he's "itching for a fight" with Republicans, he and the Democrats are failing to make an issue out of Republican obstructionism of the 9/11 first responders bill. A party that embraces power and uses it effectively could cause real embarrassment for the Republicans over that issue.

Yet - and I feel this must be said - for all these criticisms, I must return to the simple fact that none of these complaints signal that I would be any happier with a President McCain or Republican controlled Congress. I'd rather be perpetually frustrated by the Democrats lacking assertiveness for an agenda I mostly agree with than be impressed by the Republicans effectively implementing an agenda that I am largely opposed to.

dc_dux · 12-17-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Hmm... I kind of find myself agreeing with Ace's last post here. It all relates back to my first campaign boss and what he called his Grand Unified Theory of American Politics: "We like winners and don't like wussies. Act like a winner."

Now I can't go so far as to say any "give and take" is wrong. Negotiating has its place - politics isn't as simple as a price range, but is instead more like a prioritized list of demands. Conceding one demand in order to get support for the other, more important, demands can be an acceptable practice.

My first political boss was Sen. Jennings Randolph of WV. A tough old southerner and man of principle who know when to compromise. I worked on his staff in his last two years in office and learned more about politics and being an effective legislator than ace will ever know.

He was the the leading force behind the constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18. He fought for it through 10 sessions of Congress, horse trading each time until he finally had the votes.

As I pointed out earlier, Reagan compromised (caved?) on raising taxes.

And yes, despite ace's blindspot to the truth, the framers of the Constitution, those from the north, compromised core beliefs on slavery in order to form the union. There would have been no union w/o that compromise.

Quote:

My problem with Obama (and Democrats in general) is that they don't act confident while making these negotiations with Republicans, even when they are the ones in power, and even when the polls show the American people support their agenda (despite Fox News' assertions otherwise). Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party currently represents a much wider range of political philosophies than the Republican party, so I get that it's not so simple as saying all the Democrats should vote for the Democratic agenda. Nonetheless, when you have the presidency and a majority in chambers, you need to act - as a party - like you have that power. Yes, the filibuster rule is totally broken, and it's absurd that Republican obstructionism has forced a de facto requirement of 60 votes in the senate to pass most bills, but a party with as much power as the Democrats had should embrace that fight and highlight that obstructionism. Instead, they mentioned it infrequently and without urgency, making it look like they were complaining instead of shedding light on abusive practices of the opposition.

I do agree that the Democrats have not been forceful enough in calling out Republicans for their obstructionism and hypocrisy, despite the fact that the Senate Republicans had the votes to block any meaningful legislation.

And the fact that the bigger tent of the Democratic party makes it much more challenging.

Extreme ideologues (on either end) are great for political debate, but rarely achieve their political objectives....without compromise.

Baraka_Guru · 12-17-2010, 03:32 PM

I'm not talking about the British, ace, I'm talking about the building of America. You know, after the British.

And I doubt much of that required compromising on core values. Few people do that with regard to these things. It's the practical stuff that people compromise on; it's the methods, the pathway to achieving your goals (you know, based on your core values).

I assume many Americans share the same core values anyway. They tend to differ on the details.

ASU2003 · 12-17-2010, 04:17 PM

I don't know how the next two years are going to go, but there could be a serious contender for the democratic nomination from the left. An anti-war, higher taxes, healthier and safer lives type of person.

Well, the vote to raise the debt ceiling in the next house should be really interesting...

SecretMethod70 · 12-17-2010, 05:12 PM

Realistically, I don't think there's much risk for challenge from the left. Keep in mind, people were seriously discussing a challenge from the right before Reagan's eventual reelection landslide.

filtherton · 12-17-2010, 05:35 PM

I think a far right challenger to the republican nominee is more likely than a lefty challenger to Obama.

aceventura3 · 12-20-2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

My first political boss was Sen. Jennings Randolph of WV. A tough old southerner and man of principle who know when to compromise. I worked on his staff in his last two years in office and learned more about politics and being an effective legislator than ace will ever know.

He was the the leading force behind the constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18. He fought for it through 10 sessions of Congress, horse trading each time until he finally had the votes.

As I pointed out earlier, Reagan compromised (caved?) on raising taxes.

I am guessing that you don't see the conflict in your position and the two points above. Your first point illustrates than fighting for convictions is a marathon not a sprint. If you feel strongly enough you never give up, you do what it takes. Your second point illustrates that the appearance of compromise is not really compromise. You open the suggestion that Reagan may have caved, it is clear to me that he did not and that he achieved his objectives.

Quote:

And yes, despite ace's blindspot to the truth, the framers of the Constitution, those from the north, compromised core beliefs on slavery in order to form the union. There would have been no union w/o that compromise.

You don't know what the result would have been if those against slavery stood firm, all anyone can do is speculate. We do know that the cost of that compromise was enormous. The issue for those against slavery is that they thought the institution of slavery would die on its own forces and that they did not have strong enough convictions against the institution of slavery. The trend of the death of slavery was in place, that is until the explosion of the cotton industry and the invention of the cotton gin. That turned the course on the declining trend. With the explosion of the cotton industry the value of slaves went up 4 to 5 fold in a short period of time. The US stood as the only modern nation sanctioning the institution of slavery at the time of the Civil War. Given hindsight there is no doubt the slavery compromise was the wrong thing to do.

Quote:

Extreme ideologues (on either end) are great for political debate, but rarely achieve their political objectives....without compromise.

I am curious. If I help you get something you want and you help me get something I want, I assume you think that is good and even perhaps a form of compromise. But what if the thing I want is not in your best interest and will harm you, do you help me, does that make you an extremist if you don't? What if you are in a group of 1% that will be harmed and 99% won't be, does that make you an extremist? Where would you draw the line and fight for what is in your interests?

Also, I am curious - you seem to suggest that being an extremist is a bad thing, is that your view? I am very much an extremist on somethings, and I don't see it as a problem or an insult. I like living in a world where there are extremists, I think it adds color or texture to life. Do you really want a bland world of nothing but middle of the road conformists on every issue? Is there any aspect in your life where you see yourself as an extremist? Even if you give me a flip response, consider it food for thought.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'm not talking about the British, ace, I'm talking about the building of America. You know, after the British.

Like taking land from native Americans? Mexican/American war? Or how about the resolution of conflict between the free range folks and settlers? Suffrage? Prohibition? DC v. AC in the electric grid? VHS v. Beta? Every key point in American history where there was conflict, it resolved with a winner and a loser. One force prevails

Baraka_Guru · 12-20-2010, 09:44 AM

ace, what about the socialism ingrained in American society despite the Red Scare? What about liberalism despite conservative politics? Is conservatism just ceremonial? What about a market that is regulated rather than purely free? Why isn't America a purely capitalist society? Why are there two political parties?

aceventura3 · 12-20-2010, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

ace, what about the socialism ingrained in American society despite the Red Scare?

The country had a paranoia regarding certain forms of socialism that culminated in a major military build up, war, various military events, and unjust political persecution. Other forms of socialism resulting in things like social security grew from the trauma of the Depression. I don't see compromise when the two meet, what I see are like two opposing fronts, like a weather system, where those fronts meet there is conflict or thunder/lightning/severe wind/hail/etc. I also see the nation as one that grows, evolves and learns from its past, that is not what I would consider compromise either.

Quote:

What about liberalism despite conservative politics?

Given the Judeo-Christian values most American have there are conflicts in what is considered conservative and liberal values. Am I my brother's keeper, well yes - but I don't want my Uncle Sam to force me.

Quote:

Is conservatism just ceremonial?

No.

Quote:

What about a market that is regulated rather than purely free?

I do support regulated markets. The key questions involve how much and what is the purpose of regulation?

Quote:

Why isn't America a purely capitalist society?

The two forces are at odds with each other. There is push from both sides, in 2008 there was a push to a more centralized controlled society, in 2010 there was a push back.

Quote:

Why are there two political parties?

They represent the quintessential conflict on many issues in this country. They are mostly the same, but there are a few core differences. There is no compromise in these core differences.

Baraka_Guru · 12-20-2010, 10:23 AM

Despite the core differences, very little would be accomplished if there were no compromise. The compromise is in the details, methods, practices, and pathways to reach certain goals or preferred conditions.

I've already pointed this out, ace, but I'm unsure whether you understand this.

roachboy · 12-20-2010, 10:55 AM

it's curious to read ace's latest moving-around-of-words...at a time when the markety basis for conservative ideology has been imploded by reality and the right has opted for a reality-optional approach that enables them to maintain consistency at the level of statements (realilty be damned)----all very unwittingly implosion of empire stuff, frankly----it's not terribly coincidental that you'd see attempts to impute "substance" to the rhetorical form "value" and then see people like ace repeating--unwittingly no doubt, given the reality-optional thing---the moves of any number of western european neo-fascist political groups in grouping these make-believe substantives around white christian "core values" and using them to try to draw us/them lines.

it's all of a piece with making the choice to preserve fictions about the world in place of the world and to anchor them in place with a version of conservative identity politics. because in situations like this, what comes to be at stake is a matter of identity. and there's a high-priced ideological system that's been reinforcing this whole reality-optional space for some time.

after all, there's this:

40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism

and this:

Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study

which comes out of this:

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information - World Public Opinion

which outlines a pretty clear preference for fiction over reality that is specific to conservatives.

dc_dux · 12-20-2010, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am guessing that you don't see the conflict in your position and the two points above. Your first point illustrates than fighting for convictions is a marathon not a sprint. If you feel strongly enough you never give up, you do what it takes. Your second point illustrates that the appearance of compromise is not really compromise. You open the suggestion that Reagan may have caved, it is clear to me that he did not and that he achieved his objectives.
...

You don't know what the result would have been if those against slavery stood firm, all anyone can do is speculate. We do know that the cost of that compromise was enormous. The issue for those against slavery is that they thought the institution of slavery would die on its own forces and that they did not have strong enough convictions against the institution of slavery. The trend of the death of slavery was in place, that is until the explosion of the cotton industry and the invention of the cotton gin. That turned the course on the declining trend. With the explosion of the cotton industry the value of slaves went up 4 to 5 fold in a short period of time. The US stood as the only modern nation sanctioning the institution of slavery at the time of the Civil War. Given hindsight there is no doubt the slavery compromise was the wrong thing to do.

....

I am curious. If I help you get something you want and you help me get something I want, I assume you think that is good and even perhaps a form of compromise. But what if the thing I want is not in your best interest and will harm you, do you help me, does that make you an extremist if you don't? What if you are in a group of 1% that will be harmed and 99% won't be, does that make you an extremist? Where would you draw the line and fight for what is in your interests?

Also, I am curious - you seem to suggest that being an extremist is a bad thing, is that your view? I am very much an extremist on somethings, and I don't see it as a problem or an insult. I like living in a world where there are extremists, I think it adds color or texture to life. Do you really want a bland world of nothing but middle of the road conformists on every issue? Is there any aspect in your life where you see yourself as an extremist? Even if you give me a flip response, consider it food for thought.

ace....i dont doubt that from your narrow black and white perspective on politics, that is exactly how you see it...by twisting and turning part of what I wrote and ignoring or dodging and weaving around other parts.

So the bottom line for you.....Obama demonstrated weakness of character or lack of conviction by compromising on taxes and Reagan demonstrated strength of character and conviction by compromising on taxes.

IMO, both demonstrated that in real world politics in Washington, compromise is the more acceptable (in terms of legislative results) response than extremism.

dc_dux · 12-21-2010, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it's curious to read ace's latest moving-around-of-words...at a time when the markety basis for conservative ideology has been imploded by reality and the right has opted for a reality-optional approach that enables them to maintain consistency at the level of statements (realilty be damned)----all very unwittingly implosion of empire stuff, frankly----it's not terribly coincidental that you'd see attempts to impute "substance" to the rhetorical form "value" and then see people like ace repeating--unwittingly no doubt, given the reality-optional thing---the moves of any number of western european neo-fascist political groups in grouping these make-believe substantives around white christian "core values" and using them to try to draw us/them lines.

it's all of a piece with making the choice to preserve fictions about the world in place of the world and to anchor them in place with a version of conservative identity politics. because in situations like this, what comes to be at stake is a matter of identity. and there's a high-priced ideological system that's been reinforcing this whole reality-optional space for some time.

after all, there's this:

40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism

and this:

Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study

which comes out of this:

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information - World Public Opinion

which outlines a pretty clear preference for fiction over reality that is specific to conservatives.

No surprise about Fox News, with a clear and blatant political agenda and its viewers who arent looking for facts, but reinforcement of their firmly-held beliefs.

And then there is this from a CBS/NY Times poll, re: those self-identified as supporters of Tea Party movement:

Quote:

Sixty-three percent say they get the majority of their political and current events news on television from the Fox News Channel, compared to 23 percent of Americans overall.

Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration. Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans.

An overwhelming majority of Tea Party supporters, 84 percent, say the views of the Tea Party movement reflect the views of most Americans. But Americans overall disagree: Just 25 percent say the Tea Party movement reflects their beliefs, while 36 percent say it does not.

Ninety-two percent of Tea Party supporters believe President Obama's policies are moving the country toward socialism...

Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

If such stalwart Fox news commentators as Beck, Palin, Huckabee repeat it often enough, they believe!

The overlap of buying into misinformation between Fox News viewers and Tea Party supporters is no coincidence.

Baraka_Guru · 12-21-2010, 07:35 AM

We live in the Age of Truthiness.

Telluride · 02-07-2011, 03:28 AM

Not as good as Calvin Coolidge, but better than Joseph Stalin.

Marvelous Marv · 02-11-2011, 02:41 AM

I predict that Obama will continue to blame big business for not being able to compete with the Chinese.

Of course, China doesn't have a president who created a hotline to the ABA so employees don't have to go to any trouble to sue their employers.

Baraka_Guru · 02-11-2011, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I predict that Obama will continue to blame big business for not being able to compete with the Chinese.

Of course, China doesn't have a president who created a hotline to the ABA so employees don't have to go to any trouble to sue their employers.

Yeah, damn those labour laws and those who uphold them!

Big business in America would flourish if only it would adopt more Chinese strategies.

filtherton · 02-11-2011, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I predict that Obama will continue to blame big business for not being able to compete with the Chinese.

Of course, China doesn't have a president who created a hotline to the ABA so employees don't have to go to any trouble to sue their employers.

I heard some jackass from the National Chamber of Commerce echoing this sentiment yesterday too. It's fucking nuts. As if the solution to our problems is to reduce compensation and safety standards in our workplaces. Hmm. Who will benefit if we do that? Will it be the workers who can't afford to support their families with their sweatshop pay? No. Will it be the workers who won't get health insurance, but will get sick more due to shittier working conditions and thus place an even larger drain on our healthcare system? No. Will it be society in general, who will have to shoulder increased social and financial burdens brought about by the widespread adoption of sweatshop-type labor practices? No. Will it be the newly created vast underclass of the working impoverished? No.

So the people won't benefit. Society in general won't benefit. Who will? I'm guessing the folks who will employ sweatshop labor. So that's nice for them, I guess. They get a healthy windfall, and only at the expense of most of the rest of society.

Good plan, Chamber of Commerce. Obama should spend less time pandering to these assholes.

The_Jazz · 02-11-2011, 01:43 PM

Oh, Marv. It's always so nice when you decide to stop by to troll us. It's like a breath of fresh air wafting over the decaying sewage plant from an unexpected direction.

It's one thing when you're used to the smell, but something completely different when it comes by surprise. Maybe if you'd stick around we'd get used to you, but now I'm just thinking about buying some caulk.

Derwood · 02-11-2011, 03:04 PM

Marv with another drive-by troll attack. So predictable

WhoaitsZ · 03-11-2011, 01:16 PM

i'd like to cockpunch obama.

i voted for him. unless a real progressive or olympia (sp) snowe runs i will vote for him again.

i rather him break 90% of his promises than vote for someone whose issues i have no desire to support.

12-17-2010, 02:11 PM	#121 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Hmm... I kind of find myself agreeing with Ace's last post here. It all relates back to my first campaign boss and what he called his Grand Unified Theory of American Politics: "We like winners and don't like wussies. Act like a winner." Now I can't go so far as to say any "give and take" is wrong. Negotiating has its place - politics isn't as simple as a price range, but is instead more like a prioritized list of demands. Conceding one demand in order to get support for the other, more important, demands can be an acceptable practice. My problem with Obama (and Democrats in general) is that they don't act confident while making these negotiations with Republicans, even when they are the ones in power, and even when the polls show the American people support their agenda (despite Fox News' assertions otherwise). Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party currently represents a much wider range of political philosophies than the Republican party, so I get that it's not so simple as saying all the Democrats should vote for the Democratic agenda. Nonetheless, when you have the presidency and a majority in chambers, you need to act - as a party - like you have that power. Yes, the filibuster rule is totally broken, and it's absurd that Republican obstructionism has forced a de facto requirement of 60 votes in the senate to pass most bills, but a party with as much power as the Democrats had should embrace that fight and highlight that obstructionism. Instead, they mentioned it infrequently and without urgency, making it look like they were complaining instead of shedding light on abusive practices of the opposition. Even now, as Obama says he's "itching for a fight" with Republicans, he and the Democrats are failing to make an issue out of Republican obstructionism of the 9/11 first responders bill. A party that embraces power and uses it effectively could cause real embarrassment for the Republicans over that issue. Yet - and I feel this must be said - for all these criticisms, I must return to the simple fact that none of these complaints signal that I would be any happier with a President McCain or Republican controlled Congress. I'd rather be perpetually frustrated by the Democrats lacking assertiveness for an agenda I mostly agree with than be impressed by the Republicans effectively implementing an agenda that I am largely opposed to. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

12-17-2010, 03:32 PM	#123 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I'm not talking about the British, ace, I'm talking about the building of America. You know, after the British. And I doubt much of that required compromising on core values. Few people do that with regard to these things. It's the practical stuff that people compromise on; it's the methods, the pathway to achieving your goals (you know, based on your core values). I assume many Americans share the same core values anyway. They tend to differ on the details. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-17-2010, 05:12 PM	#125 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Realistically, I don't think there's much risk for challenge from the left. Keep in mind, people were seriously discussing a challenge from the right before Reagan's eventual reelection landslide. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

12-20-2010, 09:44 AM	#128 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	ace, what about the socialism ingrained in American society despite the Red Scare? What about liberalism despite conservative politics? Is conservatism just ceremonial? What about a market that is regulated rather than purely free? Why isn't America a purely capitalist society? Why are there two political parties? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-20-2010, 10:23 AM	#130 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Despite the core differences, very little would be accomplished if there were no compromise. The compromise is in the details, methods, practices, and pathways to reach certain goals or preferred conditions. I've already pointed this out, ace, but I'm unsure whether you understand this. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-17-2010, 04:17 PM	#124 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I don't know how the next two years are going to go, but there could be a serious contender for the democratic nomination from the left. An anti-war, higher taxes, healthier and safer lives type of person. Well, the vote to raise the debt ceiling in the next house should be really interesting...

12-17-2010, 05:35 PM	#126 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think a far right challenger to the republican nominee is more likely than a lefty challenger to Obama.

12-20-2010, 10:55 AM	#131 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's curious to read ace's latest moving-around-of-words...at a time when the markety basis for conservative ideology has been imploded by reality and the right has opted for a reality-optional approach that enables them to maintain consistency at the level of statements (realilty be damned)----all very unwittingly implosion of empire stuff, frankly----it's not terribly coincidental that you'd see attempts to impute "substance" to the rhetorical form "value" and then see people like ace repeating--unwittingly no doubt, given the reality-optional thing---the moves of any number of western european neo-fascist political groups in grouping these make-believe substantives around white christian "core values" and using them to try to draw us/them lines. it's all of a piece with making the choice to preserve fictions about the world in place of the world and to anchor them in place with a version of conservative identity politics. because in situations like this, what comes to be at stake is a matter of identity. and there's a high-priced ideological system that's been reinforcing this whole reality-optional space for some time. after all, there's this: 40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism and this: Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study which comes out of this: Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information - World Public Opinion which outlines a pretty clear preference for fiction over reality that is specific to conservatives. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-21-2010, 07:35 AM	#134 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	We live in the Age of Truthiness. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-07-2011, 03:28 AM	#135 (permalink)
Telluride Browncoat Location: California	Not as good as Calvin Coolidge, but better than Joseph Stalin. __________________ "I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

02-11-2011, 02:41 AM	#136 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	I predict that Obama will continue to blame big business for not being able to compete with the Chinese. Of course, China doesn't have a president who created a hotline to the ABA so employees don't have to go to any trouble to sue their employers. __________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

02-11-2011, 01:43 PM	#139 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Oh, Marv. It's always so nice when you decide to stop by to troll us. It's like a breath of fresh air wafting over the decaying sewage plant from an unexpected direction. It's one thing when you're used to the smell, but something completely different when it comes by surprise. Maybe if you'd stick around we'd get used to you, but now I'm just thinking about buying some caulk. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-11-2011, 03:04 PM	#140 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Marv with another drive-by troll attack. So predictable __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

03-11-2011, 01:16 PM	#141 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	i'd like to cockpunch obama. i voted for him. unless a real progressive or olympia (sp) snowe runs i will vote for him again. i rather him break 90% of his promises than vote for someone whose issues i have no desire to support.