Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

The Ideologue in the White House

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Ideologue in the White House

    When Obama won re-election a couple of months ago, many wondered how his 2nd term might go with respect to his presidential leadership. Would he be more cooperative, more willing to compromise to address the country's serious problems and issues? Thus far, the answer seems to be a resounding NO, instead he appears to be just as unbending as he was in his 1st term. I look at what he says and how he says it, this is not a guy that wants to get along with the opposition. He wants to divide and conquer to get his way over the next 4 years. There's nothing conciliatory in his approach, nothing collaborative in his negotiations. Looks to me like Joe Biden is the adult in the WH, the one who can get things done. And isn't that a sad state of affairs.

    I know there are several republicans who are just as unbending in their views on taxes and spending and the various other issues we face. Just as there are several democrats with just as much stubbornness in their opposing views over the same subjects. The trick has got to be to bring enough people in the middle of both parties together on solutions that at least move us all in a positive direction. But I'm not seeing that from this president; I'm seeing a president that wants it all, with no conditions. I don't think he's going to change, I think he's hellbent on winning back the House for his party in 2014 so he and they can finish the liberal agenda they want. If that happens, we could be in for a major shitstorm a few years down the road.

  • #2
    re: The Ideologue in the White House

    Originally posted by Wiseacre View Post
    Looks to me like Joe Biden is the adult in the WH, the one who can get things done.
    That would be laughable were it not painfully true. True in a 'in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king' kind of way.

    Mr. Boehner confirms that at one critical juncture he asked Mr. Obama, after conceding on $800 billion in new taxes, "What am I getting?" and the president replied: "You don't get anything for it. I'm taking that anyway."

    Why has the president been such an immovable force when it comes to cutting spending? "Two reasons," Mr. Boehner says. "He's so ideological himself, and he's unwilling to take on the left wing of his own party." That reluctance explains why Mr. Obama originally agreed with the Boehner proposal to raise the retirement age for Medicare, the speaker says, but then "pulled back. He admitted in meetings that he couldn't sell things to his own members. But he didn't even want to try."

    An ideologue, and a coward to boot.


    Stephen Moore: The Education of John Boehner - WSJ.com

    ?


    • #3
      re: The Ideologue in the White House

      Originally posted by Wiseacre View Post
      When Obama won re-election a couple of months ago, many wondered how his 2nd term might go with respect to his presidential leadership. Would he be more cooperative, more willing to compromise to address the country's serious problems and issues? Thus far, the answer seems to be a resounding NO, instead he appears to be just as unbending as he was in his 1st term. I look at what he says and how he says it, this is not a guy that wants to get along with the opposition. He wants to divide and conquer to get his way over the next 4 years. There's nothing conciliatory in his approach, nothing collaborative in his negotiations. Looks to me like Joe Biden is the adult in the WH, the one who can get things done. And isn't that a sad state of affairs.

      I know there are several republicans who are just as unbending in their views on taxes and spending and the various other issues we face. Just as there are several democrats with just as much stubbornness in their opposing views over the same subjects. The trick has got to be to bring enough people in the middle of both parties together on solutions that at least move us all in a positive direction. But I'm not seeing that from this president; I'm seeing a president that wants it all, with no conditions. I don't think he's going to change, I think he's hellbent on winning back the House for his party in 2014 so he and they can finish the liberal agenda they want. If that happens, we could be in for a major shitstorm a few years down the road.
      There's not much more we can expect from this president on the negotiating front. What we've seen is what we'll get in the future.

      He's working with a severe handicap. One that most other politicians that have come through the congress or a governorship don't have, namely, working with the opposition to get something accomplished. His meteoric rise to high office never has given his a chance to gain this experience nor develop these skills.

      how much negotiating is he doing? Last week, he had to outsource it to Vice President Biden, because he doesn't have the relationships, he hasn't spent the years, whether as president or a senator, developing the relationships so he can negotiate.

      Sunday Sound: Heard on the 'This Week' Roundtable - ABC News
      So in this very last round, he outsourced the final negotiation to Biden, who actually brought home the deal.

      I'd say, put Biden in charge of the next round of negotiation from the get go, and we may have a timely deal, and perhaps even an all around better one.

      Please understand, it's not a criticism of the president, but more an acknowledgement of fact, and acceptance of his experience and abilities. But it is also acknowledging that he also appears to be driven by his ideology as well.

      ?


      • #4
        re: The Ideologue in the White House

        President Obama is not an ideologue, he is a pragmatist. He is not very liberal in my opinion, and has tried on numerous occasions to offer solutions that conservatives 'should' embrace.

        But, Republicans have been totally unwilling to work with the President or Democrats and have taken obstructionism to a new level. Even using words like 'insurgency' to describe their plans. The health care bill was a glaring example. When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes 'insurgency', a form of domestic terrorism IMO.

        Republicans were well aware that health care reform was paramount to repairing our economy and protecting the financial security of American families. McCain, and Republicans ALSO ran on promising health care reforms.

        But Republicans made a conscious and collective decision to block and undermine any reform. Because it would be seen as a success for our President.

        David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

        Waterloo
        by David Frum

        At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994.

        This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

        Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romneys Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The final irony:
        The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.

        ?


        • #5
          re: The Ideologue in the White House

          Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
          President Obama is not an ideologue, he is a pragmatist. He is not very liberal in my opinion, and has tried on numerous occasions to offer solutions that conservatives 'should' embrace.

          But, Republicans have been totally unwilling to work with the President or Democrats and have taken obstructionism to a new level. Even using words like 'insurgency' to describe their plans. The health care bill was a glaring example. When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes 'insurgency', a form of domestic terrorism IMO.
          Oy fucking vey.

          I thought we dispensed with this "terrorism" bleat a while back, when you were introduced to the definition of terrorism and shown conclusively that no legislative intransigence can possibly be terrorism. You even admitted as much: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/poli...ml#post2132071

          And yet here we are again with you casually throwing the word "terrorism' around, utterly ignorant of the actual meaning of the word.

          Is it stupid, useless, obstructionist politics? Absolutely! Do I support it? Hell, on.

          But it isn't terrorism by any accepted definition of the word. Calling it terrorism is even stupider than the actions of the GOP themselves.

          Aw, fuck it, make up your own definitions and facts. You're gonna do it anyway....
          - Daniel Patrick Monyhan

          ?


          • #6
            re: The Ideologue in the White House

            Terrorism creates terror. For a parent with a child who has a life threatening illness, and who is denied treatment because of a 'preexisting' condition, or lack of enough insurance, those parents are terrorized.

            Unfortunately right wingers only have an epiphany when it happens to them, not a fellow American.

            I did not use the word 'insurgency', Rep. Pete Sessions did. What did he mean?

            ?


            • #7
              re: The Ideologue in the White House

              Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
              President Obama is not an ideologue, he is a pragmatist. He is not very liberal in my opinion, and has tried on numerous occasions to offer solutions that conservatives 'should' embrace.
              Do you actually believe this? I mean really man... both sides are ideologues in some form or fashion... and the version of america that obama wants "fair share" and "wealth redistribution" in itself is very ideological and different than our countries "capitalist" founding

              ?


              • #8
                re: The Ideologue in the White House

                Originally posted by Rakkasan View Post
                Do you actually believe this? I mean really man... both sides are ideologues in some form or fashion... and the version of america that obama wants "fair share" and "wealth redistribution" in itself is very ideological and different than our countries "capitalist" founding
                I do believe it based on his action. And American was not founded on capitalism, regardless of what Republicans, conservatives and the right wing robes believe.

                ?


                • #9
                  re: The Ideologue in the White House

                  Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                  Terrorism creates terror. For a parent with a child who has a life threatening illness, and who is denied treatment because of a 'preexisting' condition, or lack of enough insurance, those parents are terrorized.

                  Unfortunately right wingers only have an epiphany when it happens to them, not a fellow American.

                  I did not use the word 'insurgency', Rep. Pete Sessions did. What did he mean?
                  I didn't use the word 'insurgency' either. If you really want to know what Pete Sessions meant, why don't you ask him? I'm not on his staff, nor am I in any way in a position to speak for him.

                  As you know from the other thread, terrorism by definition involves physical violence.

                  Why can't you just man up, admit that you were wrong, and move on?

                  ?


                  • #10
                    re: The Ideologue in the White House

                    Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                    ahoy Wiseacre,

                    so far, the only real measure we seen 'o Mr. Obama's second term was his embracin' a most 'o President W. Bush's tax policies in his arrangement with Senator McConnell.

                    through all his thunder and fury 'bout holdin' the line, Mr. Obama still seems like what he's been o'er the last four years....a conservative with a stubbon streak 'o bi-partisanship.

                    i've heard a great deal 'bout this amazin' liberal that lies deep within' Mr. Obama's psyche and how he'll unleash it now that he be unfettered by havin' to worry 'bout re-election - we'll see 'bout that. Mr. Biden may seem like the adult in the room, but one 'o Mr. Biden's chief duties he was tasked with when he accepted the role 'o first mate was to help the young POTUS navigate the byzantine ways 'o congress.

                    i see Mr. Obama standin' in that broad middleground, along with Mr. Boehner, Mr. Ryan (who revealed what he truly is, in his toe-the-line approach to various Romney platforms) and a large host 'o GOP House members, along with the majority 'o GOP Senators and the Democratic Party. thats the middle ground, matey.

                    then ye have the Tea Party Caucus....

                    i mean, i don't disagree with some 'o what ye wrote, matey, but Mr. Obama is not runnin' 'round the left fringe with his hair on fire.

                    - MeadHallPirate

                    Ye amaze me cap'n, with this line o' thinkin'. I be wonderin' if ye on'y have one oar in the water so t' speak. Any bilge rat who demands higher taxes when the private sector is strugglin' is surely no conservative. And this man has shown nothing in the way of bipartisanship, his idea of workin' together is to buy off a few RINOs enough to pass his desired legislation. I see no conciliatory tone in his speech, nor cooperation in his actions. This man is a conquerer, a would be emperor who rewards his supporters and tries to destroy his opposition.
                    Last edited by Wiseacre; 01-08-2013, 09:55 AM.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      re: The Ideologue in the White House

                      Originally posted by Wiseacre View Post
                      Ye amaze me cap'n, with this line o' thinkin'. I be wonderin' if ye on'y have one oar in the water so t' speak. Any bilge rat who demands higher taxes when the private sector is strugglin' is surely no conservative. And this man has shown nothing in the way of bipartisanship, his idea of workin' together is to buy off a few RINOs enough to pass his desiredlegislation. I see conciliatory tone in his speech, nor cooperation in his actions. This man is a conquerer, a would be emperor who rewards his supporters and tries to destroy his opposition.
                      I totally agree. There is not a conservative bone in Obama's body and he has never breathed a conservative breath or uttered a conservative word.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        re: The Ideologue in the White House

                        Sorry I couldn't read past "Presidential Leadership" being applied to Obama... laughing almost too hard to type.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          re: The Ideologue in the White House

                          Originally posted by Wiseacre View Post
                          When Obama won re-election a couple of months ago, many wondered how his 2nd term might go with respect to his presidential leadership. Would he be more cooperative, more willing to compromise to address the country's serious problems and issues? Thus far, the answer seems to be a resounding NO, instead he appears to be just as unbending as he was in his 1st term. I look at what he says and how he says it, this is not a guy that wants to get along with the opposition. He wants to divide and conquer to get his way over the next 4 years. There's nothing conciliatory in his approach, nothing collaborative in his negotiations. Looks to me like Joe Biden is the adult in the WH, the one who can get things done. And isn't that a sad state of affairs.

                          I know there are several republicans who are just as unbending in their views on taxes and spending and the various other issues we face. Just as there are several democrats with just as much stubbornness in their opposing views over the same subjects. The trick has got to be to bring enough people in the middle of both parties together on solutions that at least move us all in a positive direction. But I'm not seeing that from this president; I'm seeing a president that wants it all, with no conditions. I don't think he's going to change, I think he's hellbent on winning back the House for his party in 2014 so he and they can finish the liberal agenda they want. If that happens, we could be in for a major shitstorm a few years down the road.
                          OK, so we have an election, Obama makes it clear he wants higher taxes on the wealthy, and to implement the ACA, Romney makes it clear he wants lower taxes for the wealthy and the repeal of the ACA.
                          The American People choose Obama, so you think the next step is for Obama to abandon the ideas that he ran on, that most of the people voted for, and that would make him a leader...
                          Wouldn't you expect that it's the ideas that got the fewest votes to be abandoned, in favor of the ideas that got the most votes?

                          ?


                          • #14
                            re: The Ideologue in the White House

                            Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
                            I totally agree. There is not a conservative bone in Obama's body and he has never breathed a conservative breath or uttered a conservative word.
                            Obama is not a liberal. The problem; conservatism has moved so far to the right that Reagan would be unable to gain the GOP nomination today


                            Cheer Up, Republicans


                            Youre going to have a moderate Republican president for the next four years: Barack Obama.



                            Dear Republicans,

                            Sorry about the election. I know how much it hurts when your presidential candidate loses. Ive been there many times. Youre crestfallen. You cant believe the public voted for that idiot. You fear for your country.

                            Cheer up. The guy we just re-elected is a moderate Republican.

                            I know how stupid that sounds. Barack Obama is the head of the Democratic Party. For five years, conservative politicians and media told you he was a raving socialist. In the heat of the campaign, when youre trying to beat the guy, its hard to let go of that image of him, just as its hard for Democrats to see past the caricatures of Mitt Romney. But now that the campaign is over and youre staring at a second Obama term, the falsity of the propaganda may come as a relief. By and large, Obamas instincts are the instincts of a moderate Republican. His policies are the policies of a moderate Republican. He stands where the GOP used to stand and will someday stand again.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              re: The Ideologue in the White House

                              You are all being disingenuous about the situation. If you really think about it absolutely nothing changed from this election. Amazingly enough with the very low approval ratings for Congress and depending upon who performed the survey ratings on Obama the electorate put back in place that same divided Congress (all the way down to the same players in charge) with Obama getting a second term. A few replacements here and there but in terms of party, balance, odds of them working well together, etc. just about nothing changes. One could make a strong argument the story of the day is not near as much about an Obama win as it is about a Republican loss. The party failed, flat out failed.

                              In a way Goober is right, the election put him back in place so why change his positions? Why should the ideologue of the White House change? At the same time the election made way for Boehner to keep his position as well, so why change his position? The same argument Goober puts forth is good for everyone still there, ja? Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, whoever else too, ja? Or did we expect this same group that has had 2 years of total disfunction to all of a sudden agree now? Perhaps ole T. Boone Pickens was right in his little joke about political disfunction, our debt, and eligibility for reelection legislation suggestion.

                              The point is we deserve this mess for putting back the same group that did not work all that well together before to probably not work all that well together today. What we elected was another 2 years (at least) of political theater, grandstanding and drama, and little expectation of getting much done. It is pessimistic but accurate given what we know of this lot. If we pass through the next cliff with little to no action, continue record debt, the back and forth on spending, perhaps even a shut down, probably little done on gun control, an escalation of "executive orders," etc. the fault is squarely on all of us as voters for changing absolutely nothing on the hill.

                              Why should we expect different results, or in line this thread expect different views from the exact same players in charge? Some out there really think it was wise to expect this group to function well now? (Some sort of voters are saying "work it out?")

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X