[besson3c]

In order for the Afghan war to be "winnable" the definition needs to be defined, this whole "fighting terror" front is too vague and loosely defined to suffice any longer, I think, and if that has been our goal all along at what point is it safe to say that maybe the goal is unattainable or at least what we have been doing is not working? At what point does the progress coupled with the expenses of the war with our economy the way it is point towards counting our losses and leaving?

And why is MIchael Steele being asked to step down for stating his opinion? What is wrong with having a unique viewpoint and expressing it as your personal opinion? This goes on in both parties, I'm sure, this good-old-boys club of politicians and their ideology. It is perfectly natural to have differing viewpoints, why do we expect our politicians to all champion the same viewpoints using the same rhetoric? And, why does this only seem to apply to certain issues? For instance, Dick Cheney has distanced himself from the anti-gay marriage movement, why wasn't he blasted for that? You can probably ask the same of Joe Lieberman and others...

[subego]

He called Afghanistan a "war of Obama's choosing".

[turtle777]

He's an idiot, and has been for a while.

There, my bi-partisan contribution of the day.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In order for the Afghan war to be "winnable" the definition needs to be defined, this whole "fighting terror" front is too vague and loosely defined to suffice any longer, I think, and if that has been our goal all along at what point is it safe to say that maybe the goal is unattainable or at least what we have been doing is not working? At what point does the progress coupled with the expenses of the war with our economy the way it is point towards counting our losses and leaving?

And why is MIchael Steele being asked to step down for stating his opinion? What is wrong with having a unique viewpoint and expressing it as your personal opinion? This goes on in both parties, I'm sure, this good-old-boys club of politicians and their ideology. It is perfectly natural to have differing viewpoints, why do we expect our politicians to all champion the same viewpoints using the same rhetoric? And, why does this only seem to apply to certain issues? For instance, Dick Cheney has distanced himself from the anti-gay marriage movement, why wasn't he blasted for that? You can probably ask the same of Joe Lieberman and others...

This is a good question IMO besson. I think the problem with him has several layers. I was actually a big fan of the choice of Steele as RNC chair. I thought he was a breath of fresh air, but he has been no leader of the Republican party. He has not adequately addressed the complexity of scandal (the kind that plagues both sides of the aisle) and he has not been a very strong voice of conservatism. In other words, the only time this guy is getting headlines is for misspeak or scandal. This is not the first time Steele has shown a great lack of discipline in his rhetoric, but to say that the McChrystal ordeal for example, was humorous is irresponsible and his analysis of our action in Afghanistan was surface and feeble. i.e. very little substance; almost Palinesque.

I actually agree that Afghanistan is a wasted effort (the hunt for OBL, etc...) and that Steele took the opportunity to distance himself from this Administration as it is indeed the war they touted as the more necessary war, but again - he botched the message. He continues to botch the message and I'm starting to wonder if he's more interested in propping himself up for a Presidential bid than a champion of a conservative message or the Republican party.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

He called Afghanistan a "war of Obama's choosing".

I think you run this risk when you're so opposed to one war that you'll tout the necessity of another. This was in fact the war of Obama's choosing and right or wrong, I think history would readily attach its failure to this Administration.

[subego]

Can you expand here? I don't get your point.

Edit: or more accurately, I get your point, but fail to understand how you arrived at it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a good question IMO besson. I think the problem with him has several layers. I was actually a big fan of the choice of Steele as RNC chair. I thought he was a breath of fresh air, but he has been no leader of the Republican party. He has not adequately addressed the complexity of scandal (the kind that plagues both sides of the aisle) and he has not been a very strong voice of conservatism. In other words, the only time this guy is getting headlines is for misspeak or scandal. This is not the first time Steele has shown a great lack of discipline in his rhetoric, but to say that the McChrystal ordeal for example, was humorous is irresponsible and his analysis of our action in Afghanistan was surface and feeble. i.e. very little substance; almost Palinesque.

I actually agree that Afghanistan is a wasted effort (the hunt for OBL, etc...) and that Steele took the opportunity to distance himself from this Administration as it is indeed the war they touted as the more necessary war, but again - he botched the message. He continues to botch the message and I'm starting to wonder if he's more interested in propping himself up for a Presidential bid than a champion of a conservative message or the Republican party.

This is as good a reason as any to gang up on Obama, this is indeed now his war.

Are Republicans afraid to do this because they are generally known as pro-war, and they just don't feel like they'd be in a good position to do so even though this is an opportunity for them to do something they are good at doing, making life difficult for Obama?

[lpkmckenna]

Steele will be out in 6 months, tops. He has incurable foot-in-mouth disease.

[turtle777]

^^^ This.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is as good a reason as any to gang up on Obama, this is indeed now his war. Are Republicans afraid to do this because they are generally known as pro-war, and they just don't feel like they'd be in a good position to do so even though this is an opportunity for them to do something they are good at doing, making life difficult for Obama?

I don't think Republicans have much room in which to gang up on Obama for Afghanistan. A given war is only a war of a president's choosing if it begins under that specific president's watch, and President Obama certainly wasn't in office in 2001.

Of all the areas of his presidency, the handling of Iraq and Afghanistan has arguably been Obama's most proper and mature. He wasn't at all mature on those topics during the campaign, but as president he's done a respectable job in those areas. Of course, you can fault him for taking far too long to approve the troop level increase requested by his generals and for only approving half of the troop strength requested. But overall, and certainly in comparison to the more abysmal aspects of this administration, he deserves more credit than blame up to this point on the two wars.

[besson3c]

Why is that Big Mac?

Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan seems about is ill-defined as it ever was, although at least we are starting to withdraw from Iraq now. When I say that it is poorly defined, I mean in large part the explanation to the civilian population. We've heard lots about preventing Al Queda "gaining momentum" in Afghanistan, but we've been hearing that same song for nearly a decade now. At what point is it reasonable to expect that we try something different, even if that trying something different is cutting our losses and getting out of there like we eventually did in Vietnam?

[besson3c]

Hey ebuddy,

What do you think of what Fareed Zakaria has to say here regarding Afghanistan?

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And why is MIchael Steele being asked to step down for stating his opinion? What is wrong with having a unique viewpoint and expressing it as your personal opinion? This goes on in both parties, I'm sure, this good-old-boys club of politicians and their ideology. It is perfectly natural to have differing viewpoints, why do we expect our politicians to all champion the same viewpoints using the same rhetoric? And, why does this only seem to apply to certain issues? For instance, Dick Cheney has distanced himself from the anti-gay marriage movement, why wasn't he blasted for that? You can probably ask the same of Joe Lieberman and others...

Last I checked, having like viewpoints was the whole point of having a political party in the first place. Why the hell does it make sense to have a leader of a party who doesn't seem to reflect the views of that party? Personally, I wouldn't want either party to compromise on its principles one iota. When you allow someone to chair your party committee who doesn't share your principles, that's tantamount to admitting that your principles don't really mean anything.

[P]

While GWB was the one who invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan, noone particularly criticized him for Afghanistan. All the nations that opposed the US in the UN over Iraq were in favor of eliminating the Taliban. This makes the argument against the war somewhat different - for Iraq, it's basically "told you so" (except US dems can't say that straight out since they voted yes, but it's basically what they're arguing) while for Afghanistan it's much more complex. You can argue that the war isn't being handled correctly, but that is in effect an attack on the troops, since they get to run the operation pretty much they way they'd prefer. You can argue that it's time to cut losses and leave, but noone is quite ready to admit defeat, least of all the GOP. You can argue that the goal is ill-defined, but that's as much a complaint against GWB. This means that the only possible attack from the right is a very narrow attack on the civilian administration of the Afghan war effort, and that is very hard to do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can you expand here? I don't get your point.

Edit: or more accurately, I get your point, but fail to understand how you arrived at it.

I guess I'm somewhat surprised that you're taken aback by the claim that Afghanistan is the "war of Obama's choosing". Obama repeatedly espoused his opposition to the Iraq war citing the necessity of Afghanistan. He is CIC and is generally charged with the execution of military action; in this case Afghanistan.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Last I checked, having like viewpoints was the whole point of having a political party in the first place. Why the hell does it make sense to have a leader of a party who doesn't seem to reflect the views of that party? Personally, I wouldn't want either party to compromise on its principles one iota. When you allow someone to chair your party committee who doesn't share your principles, that's tantamount to admitting that your principles don't really mean anything.

How do these ideas get challenged then, even if they are on the losing side, the weakness of the idea putting your entire party and its re-election at risk? Is it better to challenge them from within and not make this disagreement public, even if this means insincerity and basically lying to the public about your positions? The problem with this is that no politician would want to put themselves in this position since it would jeopardize their re-election, so they would most likely dodge the question. Do you want everybody to be highly politically guarded in their speech instead?

Expecting everybody in a party to be lockstep robots is pointless. People aren't like that. You can still represent ideas as a whole even if a few people are not on board, that's why we vote on stuff. It's bad enough that congressional voting is usually a completely partisan exercise.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are Republicans afraid to do this because they are generally known as pro-war, and they just don't feel like they'd be in a good position to do so even though this is an opportunity for them to do something they are good at doing, making life difficult for Obama?

While some Republicans may enjoy "making life difficult for Obama" as nothing more than a political ploy, most of the critique has been legitimate and well-received by the majority of Americans. Democrats have been the (super)majority thus far and have given Obama as much if not more heartburn than the Republicans have been able IMO. The complaints of "obstructionism" that pop up around here from time are kind of feeble IMO.

"Pro war" may be how the Daily Kos would characterize Republicans for example, but I think a more fair description would be pro national defense which includes a healthy degree of concern for how our actions are perceived in terms of success or failure. The ROI is starting to become a little more difficult to conceive in Afghanistan and losses are mounting. The region has been riddled with military failures having less to do with the prowess of opposing forces than terrain. I'm not certain their problem with Steele is his caution toward Afghanistan as much as his habitually unbridled tongue. He's perceived as a net-loss to the party at this point.

Support or opposition to action in Afghanistan is still relatively open for debate even among Republicans IMO, but what is not is the importance of this year's elections and how delicately Republicans need to handle public opinion. Rogue figures only complicate what should be a relatively simple and successful election year.

[besson3c]

Creative and unprecedented use of the filibuster is not obstructionist?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Creative and unprecedented use of the filibuster is not obstructionist?

Such as?

[besson3c]

Google "steven hurst filibuster record"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Google "steven hurst filibuster record"

I thought you were trying to suggest that the filibuster was being used in ways it hadn't prior; hence the use of the word "creative".

In terms of the rate of the use of filibusters, don't you think it follows that with an unprecedented rate of legislation and denial of Republican amendments comes an unprecedented rate of filibuster? For example; In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes.
The Huffington Post
Was this "making life difficult for Bush"?

Another interesting point;

During most of Obama's first year in office and for a few weeks this year, 58 Democratic senators and two Independents who normally vote with them held a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate.

This didn't change until Scott Brown was brought in.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I thought you were trying to suggest that the filibuster was being used in ways it hadn't prior; hence the use of the word "creative".

In terms of the rate of the use of filibusters, don't you think it follows that with an unprecedented rate of legislation and denial of Republican amendments comes an unprecedented rate of filibuster? For example; In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes.
The Huffington Post
Was this "making life difficult for Bush"?

Another interesting point;

During most of Obama's first year in office and for a few weeks this year, 58 Democratic senators and two Independents who normally vote with them held a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate.

This didn't change until Scott Brown was brought in.

Why is your default always the partisan defense posture?

I didn't say that Democrats don't try to block stuff too and aren't also obstructionist. My sense is that this has escalated, but I don't know this to be true for actual fact and I frankly don't care. My point was simply that "Republicans are good at making life difficult for Democrats". This does not exclude the possibility of the reverse also being true.

[Snow-i]

Because your default is always the partisan offense posture, besson.

And it seems your selective reasoning has an ulterior agenda, as has been demonstrated time and again. Why point it out in the way you did if not to attack the "obstructionists." And for the record, it is not just republicans "making life difficult for Obama" as he would have you believe - its the American public who's rejected just about every political move Obama has made, and for good reason too. In fact, the only person causing Obama's life to be difficult is Obama, with his unpopular policies and consistent backtracking on the campaign platform he was elected for.

Don't you remember:
"Not one single tax increase on the middle class. Period."
"The most transparent administration ever in this country"
"Post-partisan politics"
"Tougher stance on revolving door lobbyists"
"Five days of public comment before signing of bills"
"End income tax for seniors making 50k or less"
"Close Guantanamo bay"
"Fast and steady economic gain?"
"Friendly to small businesses across America"
and the list goes on. Do you remember?

Do you now understand the escalated fervor with which there are calls from both sides of the isle and the American public as a whole to "obstruct"? Despite there not being significantly more of these attempts, the urgency with which they are carried out has increased considerably.

[besson3c]

Snow: why all of that? Reread my response to ebuddy, I'm not defending Democrats or attacking Republicans. What I said that set off all of that, I don't know.

Yes, Republicans have been obstructionist, but read again what I said:

and they just don't feel like they'd be in a good position to do so even though this is an opportunity for them to do something they are good at doing, making life difficult for Obama?

Chill.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

"Not one single tax increase on the middle class. Period."
"The most transparent administration ever in this country"
"Post-partisan politics"
"Tougher stance on revolving door lobbyists"
"Five days of public comment before signing of bills"
"End income tax for seniors making 50k or less"
"Close Guantanamo bay"
"Fast and steady economic gain?"
"Friendly to small businesses across America"
and the list goes on. Do you remember?

On a different note, this is an interesting list. While some of these are rather vague and perhaps could be argued by some, what is interesting to me is how many of these goals really have nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats - not tethered to left/right ideology.

The more I think about the theories of some that the whole left/right thing has become obsolete, the more I think there is some truth to them. Perhaps the classic sorts of debates about subjects that we'll never agree on sort of take a back seat when times are as bad as they are?

It's too bad our politicians can't put their differences aside to work towards achieving some of this stuff. For real, I mean.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do these ideas get challenged then, even if they are on the losing side, the weakness of the idea putting your entire party and its re-election at risk?

This is not a rank-and-file Republican, this is the leader of the RNC. His role is not to challenge his party's ideas publicly, it is to provide strategic leadership and advance the party platform. At least this is my understanding. IMO if the party leader doesn't share the party's values, he should not be the leader and they need to find someone who does.

Is it better to challenge them from within and not make this disagreement public, even if this means insincerity and basically lying to the public about your positions?

Are you speaking politically or ethically? I would prefer that he be honest, and if his positions are not reflective of the party's that he be removed, just like is being discussed now. I think that standing on principle is more politically expedient for the Republicans than advancing a message of phony "tolerance" for other viewpoints. It is precisely this "new" Republican capitulating that is getting the right in an uproar. Why would they support more of the same?

The problem with this is that no politician would want to put themselves in this position since it would jeopardize their re-election, so they would most likely dodge the question. Do you want everybody to be highly politically guarded in their speech instead?

If he held the right principles, he wouldn't need to dodge anything. Thus the importance of having a principled leader who holds the correct principles.

Expecting everybody in a party to be lockstep robots is pointless.

I'm not suggesting this at all. I'm suggesting that if you don't have a leader that holds the right values, he is not your leader. What is the point of letting someone advance YOUR party if the ideas he is advancing are not ideas that you value?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is your default always the partisan defense posture?

You mean... a correction of your usual partisan defense posture? Was this thread started as a cover for future shilling or something? Egadz.

Just because I say I hate nighttime doesn't mean I don't also hate daytime.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I guess I'm somewhat surprised that you're taken aback by the claim that Afghanistan is the "war of Obama's choosing". Obama repeatedly espoused his opposition to the Iraq war citing the necessity of Afghanistan. He is CIC and is generally charged with the execution of military action; in this case Afghanistan.

I see the point you're making here, but are you really "taken aback" by the idea that for the phrase "war of person X's choosing" someone would assume the correct value of X is the person who chose to start it?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by subego 

I see the point you're making here, but are you really "taken aback" by the idea that for the phrase "war of person X's choosing" someone would assume the correct value of X is the person who chose to start it?

My life was not a product of an event of my choosing*, but having been born, it is mine to deal with.

Obama didn't choose to invade Afghanistan and start the war, but on assuming the presidency, it's his to deal with.

*I'm not complaining - glad it happened

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mean... a correction of your usual partisan defense posture? Was this thread started as a cover for future shilling or something? Egadz.

Just because I say I hate nighttime doesn't mean I don't also hate daytime.

My partisan defense posture of defending Steele?


I think given the totality of all of the stuff that Steele has said on multiple occasions, I'm inclined to think that maybe he shouldn't chair the RNC. He's sort of the Joe Biden of the Republican party, I think the party needs somebody less distracting in order to promote its ideas.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Snow: why all of that?

Instead of trying to deflect, why don't you comment on the extensive list of Obama's "promises", that he obviously never had any good intention of pursuing.

It's pretty clear that Obama is a slick talker, but overwhelmed by the tasks and issues at hand.

That he couldn't get stuff done while he had a filibuster proof majority just underscores this point.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Instead of trying to deflect, why don't you comment on the extensive list of Obama's "promises", that he obviously never had any good intention of pursuing.

I thought I did?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I see the point you're making here, but are you really "taken aback" by the idea that for the phrase "war of person X's choosing" someone would assume the correct value of X is the person who chose to start it?

It's much simpler than all this IMO subego.

Were there not many who chose the war in Afghanistan? Was Obama not one of them? There were many who warned against rhetoric citing Afghanistan as the "war of necessity" while opposing action in Iraq because at some point those folks would be called on to execute the war of their choosing.

Obama in August of 2007 during his bid for President;
"And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."
barackobama.com

Keep in mind that the above is his own summation of a speech he gave one year after 9/11/01. He not only chose to start the war in Afghanistan, but did so in a politically shrewd move to illustrate that he does not oppose all wars, and as Commander in Chief selected McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy for war in Afghanistan and dedicated an additional 30,000 troops to the effort. This is the "x-value" you're looking for and his subsequent choices as CIC shows that he is also the "x person" of that value. I think "the war of Obama's choosing" is not only a fair statement, it is an accurate statement.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My partisan defense posture of defending Steele?

You're honestly confused about this? Let's see, you're defending Steele against the Republican establishment, then asking how it is the, in your words, "pro-war" party can reconcile their support for Obama's war with "making life difficult for him". I mean c'mon besson, this is just silliness. It's as if you're so stuck on the whole "anti-Obama/Democrats" nonsense that you cannot fathom the concept of policy disagreement. IMO, if you could drop the Obama/Democrats defense mechanism, I'm confident you'd see things a little more clearly.

Let me put this another way, if Obama denounced health care reform then worked toward repealing the legislation, dedicated a massive Federal response to the border, prolonged the Bush tax cuts in tandem with additional small-business tax cuts free of pork, denounced the idea of cap and trade, and began touting the importance of limited government while embracing the Republican party as his new party of choice citing a "mammoth enlightenment requiring a full change of world-view"; the Republicans would welcome him into the party with opened arms and hail him as the best thing since Ronald Reagan while Democrats would indict him for insanity and proceed to "make his life difficult". i.e. It's not about Obama/Democrats, it's about policies and platforms.

If the Democratic majority in Congress thrusts an agenda with unprecedented urgency that is in conflict not only with the majority of Americans, but in stark contrast with the Republican party platform, they will be met with an unprecedented number of Republican filibusters. i.e. It's not about Obama/Democrats, it's about policy differences and platforms.

[besson3c]

Does the Republican establishment have a monopoly over Steele criticism? I'm hearing it from all sorts of different pundits on both sides.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does the Republican establishment have a monopoly over Steele criticism? I'm hearing it from all sorts of different pundits on both sides.

Are Democrats asking him to step down as RNC chair?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are Democrats asking him to step down as RNC chair?

There are no doubt many that feel he should. Does it make a difference?

[ironknee]

i think i know why steele was making the obama's war of choice comment... he just didn't express it well

yes it's obama's war and it's not going well... so rub it in more to make obama look bad.

i also think he was implying this is obama's "iraq" like the bp mess is obama's "katrina"... therefore obama is no better than bush....

he just forgot that republicans are pro war

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's much simpler than all this IMO subego.

I apologize here for not making this more explicit in the last post: I understand your point.

What I'm asking is why are you "taken aback" that his quote could have been interpreted differently? My "person X" example is meant as a demonstration as to how simple and obvious of a misinterpretation this is.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Snow: why all of that? Reread my response to ebuddy, I'm not defending Democrats or attacking Republicans. What I said that set off all of that, I don't know. Read again what I said:

and they just don't feel like they'd be in a good position to do so even though this is an opportunity for them to do something they are good at doing, making life difficult for Obama?

You said a part of a question? I mean, you even included the question mark, but tried to make it look like a statement when in reality you asked;

Originally Posted by besson

Are Republicans afraid to do this because they are generally known as pro-war, and they just don't feel like they'd be in a good position to do so even though this is an opportunity for them to do something they are good at doing, making life difficult for Obama?

Seriously dude, you're hacking your own questions into statements to make a point you had no intention of making to begin with? I suppose this was an attempt to make Snow-i appear dishonest.

Oh and yeah, it makes a difference. In your case a colossal difference.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I apologize here for not making this more explicit in the last post: I understand your point.

What I'm asking is why are you "taken aback" that his quote could have been interpreted differently?

I'm not taken aback by it, but that was my perception of your reaction to "the war of Obama's choosing". I fully expect to find folks having difficulty accepting ownership of a failed process. It follows that some who are sympathetic to the "owners" would likewise have difficulty accepting the failures.

My "person X" example is meant as a demonstration as to how simple and obvious of a misinterpretation this is.

Right, and my response was intended to show why the statement; "the war of Obama's choosing" was perfectly fair and accurate.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You said a part of a question? I mean, you even included the question mark, but tried to make it look like a statement when in reality you asked;

Seriously dude, you're hacking your own questions into statements to make a point you had no intention of making to begin with? I suppose this was an attempt to make Snow-i appear dishonest.

Oh and yeah, it makes a difference. In your case a colossal difference.

Interest waning.... waning....

It's gone! Let's move on? I'll try to be less leading with the way I say stuff, I do get Skeleton's point.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not taken aback by it...

Whoops! Yet another subego misread.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, and my response was intended to show why the statement; "the war of Obama's choosing" was perfectly fair and accurate.

Which was unnecessary, at least for my benefit, since I said "I see your point here". I felt a little bad that you expended the effort (again, if it was meant for my benefit).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Interest waning.... waning....

It's gone! Let's move on? I'll try to be less leading with the way I say stuff, I do get Skeleton's point.

It wasn't just Skeleton who engaged you in conversation - only to be ignored. Perhaps, now that you understand Skeleton's position, you can better understand the "why all that." Perhaps you'd care to comment and have some meaningful discussion?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It wasn't just Skeleton who engaged you in conversation - only to be ignored. Perhaps, now that you understand Skeleton's position, you can better understand the "why all that." Perhaps you'd care to comment and have some meaningful discussion?

If there was any ignoring going on it is because I've become pretty busy with other things in the last little while, my mind has changed on Steele (WRT this particular thread), and in light of both I haven't felt compelled to try to untangle some of these knots in these threads by backpeddling and clarifying stuff, some of which I don't feel strongly about anymore.

If you'd like to wipe the slate clean, I'm happy to. My attempt to summarize what I will do differently was written in shorthand.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If there was any ignoring going on it is because I've become pretty busy with other things in the last little while, my mind has changed on Steele (WRT this particular thread), and in light of both I haven't felt compelled to try to untangle some of these knots in these threads by backpeddling and clarifying stuff, some of which I don't feel strongly about anymore.

If you'd like to wipe the slate clean, I'm happy to. My attempt to summarize what I will do differently was written in shorthand.

Understood.

[BadKosh]

Could it be that Steele is just mediocre? He and the repubs had lots of time to lay out a detailed assault on the Obama/Dems tax-spend-regulate plans and flip-flopping policies and lying to us. The Dems will try the "Don't vote for those who caused this mess" tactic, ignoring the dems mismanagement of the financial institutions FANNIE and FREDDIE and the Dems actions since they took congress to cause the financial meltdown in the first place.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Could it be that Steele is just mediocre?

yes.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

He and the repubs had lots of time to lay out a detailed assault on the Obama/Dems tax-spend-regulate plans and flip-flopping policies and lying to us. T

they've had 1 1/2 already and still no plan...is there? please let me know

regulations: since it was wall street's big banks that go us into this, don't you want them to pay for what they did?

and with bp, they created the spill that affects a lot of americans who live there, don't you want to make them pay for what they did?

were u taxed up to your nose this year?

explain the flip flopping and lying please...what are you referring to

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

he Dems will try the "Don't vote for those who caused this mess" tactic, ignoring the dems mismanagement of the financial institutions FANNIE and FREDDIE and the Dems actions since they took congress to cause the financial meltdown in the first place.

this says it all to me about bush's handling of the economy... i'll be the first to boo obama if he suggests that the fix is to go shopping

[BadKosh]

The LYING? You mean like this? :

Don't you remember:
"Not one single tax increase on the middle class. Period."
"The most transparent administration ever in this country"
"Post-partisan politics"
"Tougher stance on revolving door lobbyists"
"Five days of public comment before signing of bills"
"End income tax for seniors making 50k or less"
"Close Guantanamo bay"
"Fast and steady economic gain?"
"Friendly to small businesses across America"
and the list goes on. Do you remember?

Since 2007 when the DEMS started ruining the financial systems so as to then blame bush - What were Dodd and Frank doing? Other than pushing the mortgage and banking industries over. CONGRESS has the power, not the president. It was congress that got you into the wars.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

yes.



they've had 1 1/2 already and still no plan...is there? please let me know

Are you really interested in the Republican proposals related to regulation and tax policy? Somehow I doubt it. Of course, you already know what they are and don't appreciate them so you just pretend there haven't been some 130+ health care reform proposals, 40+ varying tax decrease proposals, countless regulatory reform proposals, etc... "BANANAS IN MY EARS LALALALALALALANANANANALALALALAFOXNEWSSARAHPALINCHE NEYHALIBURTONNANANANANANA!"

regulations: since it was wall street's big banks that go us into this, don't you want them to pay for what they did?

Wall Street? Really? Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Start rattling those "Wall Street" follies off my friend. Make sure there weren't any behaviors either incentivised or mandated by government action while you're at it. As if government doesn't appreciate tax revenue and capital gains assumption as much as Corporations appreciate profit.

and with bp, they created the spill that affects a lot of americans who live there, don't you want to make them pay for what they did?

... yes and of course BP wanted the oil spill. They are BIG OIL and BIG OIL is all about spewing millions of gallons of their liquid gold into the gulf so they could say HA! ME BIG OIL YOU PEE-ON! BTW, what has your precious government regulation done to protect us from these monoliths? What were the Democratic proposals to save us from the Oil giants?

were u taxed up to your nose this year?

We're half-way through the year my zealous friend. Why do you act as if the year is through. How much spending do you suppose can occur without a tax increase? Then, what don't you consider a "tax increase". If it costs you more money and a bulk of that is going to government bureacracy, but is called something different like say... a "fee" or "penalty", is it not a tax increase? Just want to make sure you know what argument you're trying to make here.

explain the flip flopping and lying please...what are you referring to

You're kidding right? I mean, it's bad enough you've got bananas in your ears, you're blindfolded too? Egadz.

this says it all to me about bush's handling of the economy... i'll be the first to boo obama if he suggests that the fix is to go shopping

Is this like solving run-away gas prices by inflating your tires?

What is it about Progressives that they can only see in the past, but somehow never learn from it?