Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You described many liberals to a tee. If you don't agree with them then you are an obstructionist. I doubt they will ever wake up. I know, I have a few in my family and it's like talking to a brick wall.
True-
1. Liberals believe in the power and "rights" of the government over the individual
2. Liberals believe that diminished individual rights, for the perceived benefit of the majority is fine
3. Liberals believe that supression of Constitutional Rights (1st, 2nd, 9th and 10th) is perfectly fine, as long as it advances their agenda.
In their zeal to embrace a liberal agenda and endorse any liberal candidate, libs are pressing the nation in a fast track toward totalitarianism. Limits on individual rights and freedoms in order to advance a political agenda only welcomes an oppressive, totalitarian state, which will NEVER YIELD POWER, once gained.
Are libs that dense?
1. A larger government will expand its powers
2. Powers of the federal government (by definition) will diminish local and individual rights
3. With diminished individual rights, there is more power of the central government over the people, rather than vice versa.
4. A larger federal government will exact more income, labor, and savings from individuals in order to sustain thier political structure.
5. Power, once achieved, is hard to remove.
WAKE UP LIBS- TOTALITARIANISM IS A BLIND AND BLUNT INSTRUMENT WHICH HARMS ALL CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS. Want to be a slave- vote liberal. You have fallen for the same liberal rhetoric and lies for 40 years, all of which have resulted in declines in income and increases in poverty and wealth gaps.
Why? Liberal politicians will endorse policies which increase their constituency- more poor people= more democrats.
Bill Clinton ushered in NAFTA and China trade policies to gut the middle class. Now we have Obama pressing the Pacific Rim trade agreement. Are you libs that obtuse?
You are mistaken, but sadly too myopic to see it. I will also note you injected me into the discussion when I was speaking for what (R's) would do. Personally I would not vote for Carson because he is not qualified to be president in my view. Then again neither was Obama. Still it has little to do with your absurd assertion.
If the (R's) wanted to reverse your simplistic generalization, they would say (D's) will not nominate a Hispanic, they only nominate white males up until a black man. Heck I don't think a Hispanic has ever run for the (D) nomination, yet several are running and might very well be the (R) nominee. So (D's) therefore must be racist against Hispanics.
See how stupid that sounds?
The (R's) obstructed Bill Clinton and hated him like poison because of his smarmy behavior and lack of ethics. As you may recall he is about as white and male as you can get. Oh wait, the (R's) actually impeached him. Did they do the same with Obama, the black president
The big difference between Bill and Barak is that Bill was pragmatic enough to want to accomplish things, and recognized sticking to intractable liberal ideology would only result in gridlock. So he negotiated with Gingrich to get things done.
He got some of what he wanted and so did the (D's). The same is true of Reagan who had to deal with Tip O'Neal and the (D's).
Hence the reason he raised taxes, but also got some things in return. Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were successful governors, hence loaded with executive experience.
Not so much with Obama, who is one of the least experienced presidents we have ever had.
So you can blindly stick to your delusion or PC brainwashing and believe Obama is the victim of racism at the hands of the (R's). But it is just as much a false narrative as the race merchants promoting of "hands up, don't shoot".
Bill Richardson (D) was the governor of New Mexico and ran for president.
Clearly Republicans are bothered with the reality that they will never nominate a black or a woman as the Republican nominee.
If anything, I hope blacks have seen the contempt Republicans have shown. Your comment is a good example.
WAKE UP LIBS- TOTALITARIANISM IS A BLIND AND BLUNT INSTRUMENT WHICH HARMS ALL CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS. Want to be a slave- vote liberal.
Meh, both parties are pretty much liberal in nature. Voting is the same as slavery, I think. It shackles us in a false sense that we have a say. It will take something else to break the mold. Democracy exists to inhibit change.
Bill Richardson (D) was the governor of New Mexico and ran for president.
Clearly Republicans are bothered with the reality that they will never nominate a black or a woman as the Republican nominee.
If anything, I hope blacks have seen the contempt Republicans have shown. Your comment is a good example.
I cannot tell if you are just being trollish, or you really believe what you type. I guess I did forget about Richardson who I think is Hispanic. However what does that have to do with your comment about my alleged contempt toward blacks?
You take just a tiny portion of my post and just ignore the rest and my overall point. Why not take a couple of minutes and go point by point replying to my examples of Clinton, Regan, etc. Or does that not fit into your narrative regarding Obama
More importantly, my goal is not to deride you, rather try to open your eyes to your misguided assertions based on years of liberal PC brainwashing.
Lastly, you need to adjust speaking in absolutes with terms like never. You said the (R's) will never have a black or woman as the nominee. That sounds very immature and shortsighted.
Don't forget it was not all that long ago, the (D's) were known as the anti-black party, and even had prominent members who were KKK members. While I never would have labeled them all racists, many more were than the (R's) ever have been.
Bill Richardson (D) was the governor of New Mexico and ran for president.
And since he didnt win, what does this say about racist Democrats? After all, thats YOUR contention, that if you dont elect the minority its because of racism..
An accusation used by a party enraged that a black man is president. Under Bush we got huge deficits, completely unfunded Medicare Part D, the $2 trillion dollar Iraq War where they literally lost $40 billion dollars on pallets the Great Recession, TARP and a disastrous Katrina response and that's just the surface. Seven years and Bush never did get Bin Laden.
Obama took office in the face of the Great Recession and got Bin Laden in his first term. Like I said, I think history will be extremely favorable to Obama, far more than Republicans will ever admit. We'll wait a couple of decades, then do a movie. I hope some of these Republicans are still be alive to see the reenactment.
George Bush took office just as a new recession was starting, the Dot Com Bust. On top of that Clinton's failure to address the looming problem of Islamic terrorism led to 9/11. A large part of Bush's early deficits was rebuilding the military after the cuts of the Clinton era. Bush's deficits peaked in 2004 at $412b and was down to $160b by 2007, the last budget of the Republican House. Nancy Pelosi's first budget exploded the deficit to the highest ever at $458b. In 2009 Obama signed the biggest budget ever at $1.4t. That budget, plus his next three were more than double Bush's for all 8 years.
Killing Bin Laden has been the sole accomplishment of Obama's time in office and he wouldn't have done it without the intelligence developed under Bush and from the captured terrorists, but since Obama just kills terrorists with drone (and innocent civilians) as opposed to capturing them and their computers, cell phone and documents, new intelligence has dried up,
Add in the disastrous polices in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, alienating Israel and cozying up to Iran, the Middle East is a shambles. All the gains that were made under Bush were destroyed by Obama's premature pull outs and failure to get status of forces agreements.
On the domestic scene middle class wages are stagnant, the economy limps along, the percent of people working is historically low, poverty rates are up in the black community, food stamp recipients are at an all time high, the inequality gap that Democrats scream about has only gotten worse under Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
I answered the OP. You may not like the answer, you may not like what most everyone sees about the Republican Party, but I answered the OP's question. It's funny to hear someone complain about identity politics when members of their own party are whining about white racism. Other than Obama, all presidents have been white men even though they are only 31% of the US population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
They will not nominate a black presidential candidate. A handful in small positions is fine for optics though..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
He was a failure because Republicans wouldn't give a black RNC chairman money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Sure he can run. He won't be nominated.
You are terribly confused. It is Democrats who obsess on race as evidenced by your posts. Republicans don't see skin color or ethnicity, they see qualifications.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and Attorney General are not "optic" positions, they are some of the most important appointed positions in the government. The first popularly elected black Senator was a Republican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Not sure where you're getting your information. Republicans planned on the night of the 2008 election to oppose anything Obama said. They wouldn't let him so much as make a nomination. No bills passed. Congress did absolutely nothing and McConnell said that was the goal. To do nothing and blame Obama. It won't be forgotten, I can assure you.
Obviously you've forgotten already since when Obama took office in 2009 he had overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate. There were only 40 Republicans, they couldn't filibuster anything.
If you are referring to McConnell's remarks on a goal of Obama being a one term president, he made that remark in an interview in 2010 on the eve of the election where the Republicans regained the House. You might want to read what McConnell actually said, please note especially his comment on his willingness to meet Obama halfway.
Given that the Republican party is the party of Dixie, without a doubt, the obstruction is the product of racism and ignorance. It is a shameful, embarrassing time for the GOP, and it will be viewed as such in the future.
Dixie died a very long time ago and it was the exclusive home of Democrats. They call it the Sun Belt now and it stretches across the old South from FL through the Southwest to Southern California.
What is shameful is the continuous race baiting by the left for political gain to try and gin up the base.
in fifty years Thinking Americans, political scientists and historians looking back will agree that the criticisms of Barack Obama were justified and that the false claims of it being motivated by racism were in fact the accusations of racists themselves. As if Obama won't suffer enough from failure and scandal, he'll be forever linked to being supported by racists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
