DescentBB

wow, how times change......and, a good illustration of the Eisenhower/Obama comparison I am fond of making.

Meh. Somewhat cherry-picked, here's the full text.

still, Foil, what happened to this list of ideals, as summarized in my post? You can toss in the whole document, but these things WERE there, amongst the near-mandatory 'One Nation Under God' stuff that passed for 'patriotism' and all the rest in the longer document. What happened along the way?

callmeslick wrote:...What happened along the way?

What happened is integrity and morality were set aside to make building and preserving power for the party the priority regardless of how that damages the country. They became pimps running a scam on their bitches/voters.

And if you mean to imply that only the R's have changed that way, which seems to be your modus operandi, then you are assisting the D's with the same scam...

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...What happened along the way?

What happened is integrity and morality were set aside to make building and preserving power for the party the priority regardless of how that damages the country. They became pimps running a scam on their bitches/voters.

And if you mean to imply that only the R's have changed that way, which seems to be your modus operandi, then you are assisting the D's with the same scam...

no, but the same site I 'stole' that from(which did include a link to the entire text that Foil posted) also included the 1956 Democratic Platform. Rather consistent with current party goals around international relations, much domestic policy, but rather silent on Minority rights. Sure, Will, every group, and most people, change and/or modify their views over time. And yes, I'd agree that both parties have become WAY to focused merely on getting into and holding office, rather than showing the willingness and bold vision needed to actually ACCOMPLISH anything for the people. I just find it hilarious that, to this very moment, a lot of 'conservative' folks on the net refer to Obama and his vision for America as 'socialist', 'anti-American', 'communistic', 'radical' or even 'dictatorial'. He may as well have borrowed 90% of his plan from Eisenhower's ghost, when one looks at matters realistically.

I'm sorry, what were you lying?

truth actually, all of it, and it hurts to accept it, huh, Thorne?

I would have to be a Republican, slick. I'm taking offense to your writing off 'socialist', 'Anti-American', and 'Dictatorial', specifically, for no reason other than to score points in the political game you're engaging in.

latest WSJ polling-favorability spread in red:
SUMMARY TABLE OF IMAGES – BY D/S (POSITIVE – NEGATIVE)
TOTAL
POSITIVE
TOTAL
NEGATIVE D/S
The U.S. Postal Service ..................................... 60 13 47
Chris Christie ..................................................... 36 12 24
Pope Benedict the Sixteenth .............................. 30 17 13
Barack Obama ................................................... 49 40 9
The National Rifle Association or NRA ............... 42 34 8
Marco Rubio ....................................................... 24 17 7
The Democratic Party ........................................ 41 36 5
The Catholic Church .......................................... 31 26 5
Michael Bloomberg ............................................ 24 20 4
Chuck Hagel ...................................................... 12 17 -5
The Republican Party ......................................... 29 46 -17

This, in a sense, illustrates my problem with Obama at the moment:

It's like everything is just an opinion poll to him. He seems more interested in making sure that the masses think the Republicans are terrible people than he is in actually doing any compromise. The MO really seems to be get what you want and when someone dares to oppose you, vilify them for not seeing things your way. It's funny how he conveniently forgets that the Republicans did give him tax hikes, yet he doesn't seem in the least bit interested in lowering spending... of course that shouldn't surprise us.

I remember way back in the day when Obama said he was going to work to find bipartisan solutions... boy does that seem to have gone by the wayside when it comes to spending and taxes, huh?

snoopy wrote:This, in a sense, illustrates my problem with Obama at the moment: It's like everything is just an opinion poll to him.

You mean a valuable source of feedback?

snoopy wrote:He seems more interested in making sure that the masses think the Republicans are terrible people than he is in actually doing any compromise.

Are you out of your mind? I guess you haven't been paying attention to the absurd amount of vilification Obama has put up with since he took office, but if you need a little reminder, look at woodchip's avatar. Also, Obama doesn't need to do anything to make the Republicans look terrible, they do that themselves quite well.

snoopy wrote:I remember way back in the day when Obama said he was going to work to find bipartisan solutions... boy does that seem to have gone by the wayside when it comes to spending and taxes, huh?

See above. If he's going to be cast as the enemy, might as well play the part. The Republicans have no interest in working with him, never have, never will.

vision wrote:

snoopy wrote:This, in a sense, illustrates my problem with Obama at the moment: It's like everything is just an opinion poll to him.

You mean a valuable source of feedback?

A leader doesn't follow popular opinion, he changes popular opinion to follow his lead because he knows what is best. You can hire any intern to simply rubber stamp poll results...

Obama isn't rubber stamping poll results though. Instead of leading by persuading the electorate to believe in his methods and goals he is forcing Repubs to capitulate because he wields a bigger stick.....it has ABC, CBS, NBC, Pop Culture Media, etc. carved in it.

He is changing poll results by campaigning instead of offering leadership. His whole term in office has been a never ending campaign to vilify opposition and claim mandate by default without offering any substance to justify his means. He started out with saying vote for me because I'm not Bush. And has governed by saying accept my methods because I'm not an evil republican. That's the whole package right there.

The electorate goes along with the only explanation offered, campaign rhetoric instead of fact and detail and is never even told that White House math doesn't add up, that the shovel ready jobs don't exist, that the real goals are too scary to let go public...
The media, so far, has gone along with the tactic. Barely even complaining that they don't get access, so forget about them challenging the president on the details! Without the media making that challenge the electorate, too stupid and not intellectually curious enough to look behind the smoke screen remain complacent.

Yea, I watched his speech at the shipyard yesterday, and the predictability of blaming “the Republicans” is becoming extremely depressing.

He’s even more predictable than slick.

as great Presidents have figured out, pitching directly to the electorate(Teddy Roosevelt called it the bully pulpit, you all disdainfully call it 'campaigning') is the way to push an agenda forward within our political system. Especially, in this case, given that Obama has been met by near-complete lack of any cooperation from the GOP leadership, and outright slander from the rank and file of that party, he has no other option. I am constantly amused by folks that decry Obama's style as confrontational or partisan politicking, when he spent a few years trying the gentler approach and we saw the results.....

There is a BIG difference between the "bully pulpit" and getting away with lies thanks to media turning a blind eye to it!
Here, finally someone inside the mainstream is willing to say the emperor has no clothes. This is an example of his tactics that you are trying to rationalize as business as usual.

old Bob has gotten irrelevant, and clearly seems to be angling for a Fox gig. That said, one has to wonder if Obama has deemed the carrier unnecessary to current force levels in the region. If so, why not use the considerable expense in other places?

callmeslick wrote:old Bob has gotten irrelevant, and clearly seems to be angling for a Fox gig.

Riiiggghhhtttt. Because anytime the message disturbs you it is the messenger that you want everyone to look at with disdain instead of have them contemplate the substance of the message. Like you tried to do with the recording of Obama that I linked. You claimed he never said those things, that 'it was doctored and there were no other sites with it available' then I posted the source, New Hampshire Public Radio and suddenly you disappeared from the conversation...
You claim to be objective...registered independent etc.
Independent from objectivity perhaps, that's about it.

callmeslick wrote:That said, one has to wonder if Obama has deemed the carrier unnecessary to current force levels in the region. If so, why not use the considerable expense in other places?

Even if that is the case he isn't going to pass up the opportunity to hide that and instead demagogue the issue making people believe the repubs are making it impossible for him to protect america.

If the repubs were smart they would take everyone of these examples where the Dems claim a terrible outcome because department/program x,y or z is going to be cut and they should publish the budget for said department/program and show all the crap in the budget that could be cut instead of the important items that the Dems are using to scare people with!
Like Hillary tried with Bengazi, she said security suffered because of cuts. Bullcrap, they spend millions on partys and food and travel and luxury accomodations etc. If they want to claim they are putting servicemen and diplomats at risk because they spent the money on bull★■◆● instead of the important stuff then let them!!
But the repubs are cowards and aren't very bright....then again they need a media that will publish their expose...so maybe they arent so stupid. They are fighting against a stacked deck.

If the media continues it's partisan role how long do you think it will be before you are no longer happy with the methods of a political party that acts with complete impunity and has put the majority of the voters forever in their camp by way of government entitlements? It is a very short sighted and foolish thing to go along with this just because it serves your political team a victory in the short term!

Feeling unpopular? Blame the media!

Blame the Media is an old game, and few are buying it any more.....

callmeslick wrote:Blame the Media is an old game, and few are buying it any more.....

And you haven't done so? Calling the NHPR radio broadcast "doctored"? Calling Woodward irrelevant? I guess it's different when you do it right?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Blame the Media is an old game, and few are buying it any more.....

And you haven't done so? Calling the NHPR radio broadcast "doctored"? Calling Woodward irrelevant? I guess it's different when you do it right?

I'm not blame NH public radio for their broadcast, I called the recording they broadcast doctored(and they weren't the source of that recording. I can say whatever I feel about Woodward, it has no bearing on anyone broadcasting it, nor their right to. I am not of the opinion that media does much other than pander to the wishes of their target audience, as opposed to working for one side or another(a BIG difference).

Will Robinson wrote:If the repubs were smart they would take everyone of these examples where the Dems claim a terrible outcome because department/program x,y or z is going to be cut and they should publish the budget for said department/program and show all the crap in the budget that could be cut instead of the important items that the Dems are using to scare people with!
Like Hillary tried with Bengazi, she said security suffered because of cuts. Bullcrap, they spend millions on partys and food

Yup…it’s the same BS here in Philly, every time they want to raise taxes, they put police and fire on the chopping block first.

Problem is when it comes to politics the republicans are like the fox in the fox and rabbit example…(democrats are so much better at politics because their jobs depend on it, while Republicans, just go back to private life, if they fail)

and, fail, they do! Nice of them, for instance, to not invite Christie to CPAC to speak(or even attend, although the buffet would take a hit). Eventually, that party will be down to a handful.

Woodward is irrelevant. The dude landed one important story forty years ago and somehow he's the guy that everyone turns to. Where was he on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

I was being sarcastic about the Fox gig.....Woodward is trying to sell a new book. Some of his more recent efforts can be located in the Bargain Bin at most bookstores, so he wants to reverse the trend. His latest inference that he was 'threatened' is ludicrous. Any reader of the actual e-mail in question would read it as an apology for the other person losing their temper, and then, merely suggesting that Bob would regret taking a certain point of view once all the facts emerge. Nothing more, nothing less. No threat, real or implied. Further, I find it to be more evidence of the fading status and desperation for attention that Bob is now down to leaking private emails to sell a book.

hilarious, vision, and sadly very true. I've thought this about old Bob for a decade or more. He just seems more pathetic with every cycle in which he tries to insert himself into the journalistic mainstream. Some of the Bush era stuff was painful to listen to, when he was interviewed.....came off like a dog begging for scraps.

And Lanny Davis? I guess you need to start spinning reasons to discredit him too.

hmmm. Lanny Davis? Oh, the one who jumped up and said 'me, too' without identifying anyone? Let's see some proof, Lanny. Thus far, one guy with a book to sell and a second with an ax to grind don't impress me.

callmeslick wrote: He just seems more pathetic with every cycle in which he tries to insert himself into the journalistic mainstream.

Excuse me but there is a mainstream? You mean the curry favor crowd that writes adulation pieces about Obama?

callmeslick wrote:hmmm. Lanny Davis? Oh, the one who jumped up and said 'me, too' without identifying anyone? Let's see some proof, Lanny. Thus far, one guy with a book to sell and a second with an ax to grind don't impress me.

Why show you proof? You just fade away when it is given. You dont engage in reflection as events unfold you are just an echo of the Whitehouse support team. You called the damaging news unworthy....your job is done....

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:hmmm. Lanny Davis? Oh, the one who jumped up and said 'me, too' without identifying anyone? Let's see some proof, Lanny. Thus far, one guy with a book to sell and a second with an ax to grind don't impress me.

Why show you proof? You just fade away when it is given. You dont engage in reflection as events unfold you are just an echo of the Whitehouse support team. You called the damaging news unworthy....your job is done....

I'll engage in reflection if it comes from a legitimate source. Woodward isn't, for reasons I stated, and Lanny just seemed to remember(but had no details or proof) when talking on the radio to a Breitbart employee. Let's see some proof, and NO, I don't feel that stating 'you'll regret making this assertion' is a threat.....but, given the extreme reactions from some here, I understand how you feel the need to carry pistols in public. Hell, you all must see threats EVERYWHERE!!!

Nice little blanket statement there…

You need to start living up to your own expectations.

SIGH…

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: He just seems more pathetic with every cycle in which he tries to insert himself into the journalistic mainstream.

Excuse me but there is a mainstream? You mean the curry favor crowd that writes adulation pieces about Obama?

Man I want to live in your funny little head world. It seems like it'd be a lot of fun.

Just for you CUDA, since you think I'm obsessed with Bush. The Republican Party is not going to change and start winning votes until..............

http://news.yahoo.com/why-gop-must-come ... 00331.html

Interesting article TC. I disagree with it though. His thesis statement is incorrect as a definitive. We see their past failures mostly because the present administration is running an active, aggressive and particularly pernicious smear campaign. He's doing anything he can to get the attention off of what he's doing. Like overstepping (again) Congress's hold on giving Egypt $250,000,000 in additional "emergency" aid. We just gave them $1.5 BILLION along with a handful of F-18.

EH??!?? Last I checked the Islamic brotherhood didn't think very highly of us. When we're in the middle of this sequestering, why are we giving aid to anyone when we have to BARROW the money from someone else to do it?

How far would we get in our lives if we did this?

(sorry, bit of a sore spot there)

Granted, the Republicans have some damage control to do, but they aren't going to get very far in the present political climate.

Duper wrote:...

Granted, the Republicans have some damage control to do, but they aren't going to get very far in the present political climate.

Until the media gets back to at least pretending to have some neutrality in reporting that which may harm the Obama team the Repubs can't possibly gain ground except among the far right.


For example, this story would be saturating the mainstream if it had been the Bush administration doing it....
Will it grow to even close to that in the current mainstream media paradigm? Not likely.

The House GOP wants to make sure we fund the Defense Dept. and Homeland Security, but to hell with other government services.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3

wow, two Washington Times citations in one night. You all realize that newspaper has ZERO credibility, right?

The GOP Defense end run around the sequester.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... um=twitter

http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/h ... 2013-03-05

I know that no one likes Maddow, but she did a funny sequence on the House GOP attempt.

The grass is always greener on the other side of Defense