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.
I did not Compare the GOP to Obama. I compared Romney to Obama. There is a huge difference. There is wide degree of opinions and ideology inside the Republican party. I am not a Romney fan, but he is more Moderate than say some of the right wing extremist.
New England republicans tend to be more moderate. For most , the church dosnt come into play, so its all about money.
Well obviously you are far right (As if there was any doubt). Romney is a moderate. He did not have the same vitriol they you seem to have on the issue. Actually, he did not even say that he would reverse it. Which actually makes me more far right than Romney on the issue, and I am considered by most to be a liberal...interesting.
You actually mistated what Obama actually did. It is called selective enforcement of the law. I think one of his aids called it prosecutorial discretion. I disagree with the President on the issue. I don't think the Executive branch gets to pick and choose which laws they enforce. Having said that, it was a brilliant political move on his part.
The funny thing is that in November we could have a new president. Do you really think that Romney will be any different on immigration? If you do, I have a bridge that you might want to look at. He is no different than Bush and Reagan. They were both establishment (moderate) republicans who were soft on immigration because that is what business likes, but hey if you think it will be any different and that makes you sleep at night...good for you.
..............and you are "far left". You see, when is standing on the far left side of the political spectrum, everyone else is "right wing". I find this amusing that liberals do not seem to understand this issue or "political perilax".
"SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW"!!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break- it is BREAKING THE LAW. One one "selectively" enforces the law, they are ignoring it for certain people. That, in fact, is BREAKING THE LAW.
Do I think that Romney will be different on immigration? YES. Let me know where the bridge is at and I would be willing to take a look at it. I can guarantee you that Romney would not have unilaterally granted citizenship to the children of immigrants. Furthermore, Romney would not have sued Arizona for enforcing federal law. Will Romney be different? OF COURSE! Romney and Obama could not be further apart on this issue.
Now PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION-
IF OBAMA CAN BREAK THE LAW WHENEVER HE WANTS, WHICH LAWS CAN OTHER CITIZENS BREAK WITHOUT FEAR OF CONSEQUENCES? A murder here and there? Forgery? Assault? You see (and obviously you cannot, as liberals embrace authoritarian socialism over the rule of law (which applies to ALL CITIZENS in a republic), the laws are only valid when they APPLY EQUALLY TO EVERYONE AND ARE ENFORCED UNIVERSALLY. Fascists and totalitarian types (like liberals) feel as though they are "enlightened" and therefore do not have to respect the laws they do not like. It is simple arrogance and shows a disdain for the rule of law and the republic.
WHICH LAWS CAN WE ALL BREAK NOW? That is a tough one for libs, as this totalitarian business is a bit trickier than they thought, just as is their uncomfortable alliance with Islam, simply as a foil against Christianity. It must be confusing be a liberal, when one has to rely upon so many caveats, exceptions, and special circumstances. It must be hard to keep track of all the conflicting "values" and hypocrisy. When in science, when one has to create many "special circumstances" and exceptions to make a hypothesis "fit", one is generally dealing with a false premise. That is liberalism- a false and failed premise that does not withstand scrutiny and consistency.
Keep in mind that Obama may have been forced to govern as a moderate to some extent, but that does not make him a moderate or mean his ideology is moderate. He was ranked as the most liberal senator one year and some of the proposals he's made have certainly not been moderate.
As far as Romney, I see him as being at least a fairly solid fiscal conservative and he does understand that the free market drives our economy and prefers that to the idea that the government should be the primary driver of our economy, which is what I feel Obama's idea is. No, Obama is not a socialist, communist, or marxist, but I clearly think his views on the role of government are different from Romney's and he has shown that he is willing to demonize capitalism (see the attacks on Bain, among other things) when he feels it will be advantageous to him politically.
That's just my opinion.
Forced to govern as a moderate? Where the hell do you get that idea from?
Obama governs the way he does is because he is bought and paid for
Also Romney is bought and paid for too so he will govern the same
What Obozo says and does are two different things
It sounds like you dont have a clue about politics
Presidents are so much subject to political pressures that they all tend to come out looking like moderate centrists. It may be easier to see the stark differences reflected in their SCOTUS appointments. Look at the Heller decision--for the most part, the R-appointed justices thought that gun rights were individual rights, while the D-appointees thought that gun rights were collective. George Will has a good column today about the topic:
..............and you are "far left". You see, when is standing on the far left side of the political spectrum, everyone else is "right wing". I find this amusing that liberals do not seem to understand this issue or "political perilax".
"SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW"!!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break- it is BREAKING THE LAW. One one "selectively" enforces the law, they are ignoring it for certain people. That, in fact, is BREAKING THE LAW.
Do I think that Romney will be different on immigration? YES. Let me know where the bridge is at and I would be willing to take a look at it. I can guarantee you that Romney would not have unilaterally granted citizenship to the children of immigrants. Furthermore, Romney would not have sued Arizona for enforcing federal law. Will Romney be different? OF COURSE! Romney and Obama could not be further apart on this issue.
Now PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION-
IF OBAMA CAN BREAK THE LAW WHENEVER HE WANTS, WHICH LAWS CAN OTHER CITIZENS BREAK WITHOUT FEAR OF CONSEQUENCES? A murder here and there? Forgery? Assault? You see (and obviously you cannot, as liberals embrace authoritarian socialism over the rule of law (which applies to ALL CITIZENS in a republic), the laws are only valid when they APPLY EQUALLY TO EVERYONE AND ARE ENFORCED UNIVERSALLY. Fascists and totalitarian types (like liberals) feel as though they are "enlightened" and therefore do not have to respect the laws they do not like. It is simple arrogance and shows a disdain for the rule of law and the republic.
WHICH LAWS CAN WE ALL BREAK NOW? That is a tough one for libs, as this totalitarian business is a bit trickier than they thought, just as is their uncomfortable alliance with Islam, simply as a foil against Christianity. It must be confusing be a liberal, when one has to rely upon so many caveats, exceptions, and special circumstances. It must be hard to keep track of all the conflicting "values" and hypocrisy. When in science, when one has to create many "special circumstances" and exceptions to make a hypothesis "fit", one is generally dealing with a false premise. That is liberalism- a false and failed premise that does not withstand scrutiny and consistency.
You seem to be confused...invariably this often occurs. I am not supporting Obama's actions. I do not have to defend actions I do not support. Having said that, the executive branch is responsible for enforcement of the laws. If Obama is "breaking the Law" then it would have to be the Constitution, which of course sets no punishments, therefore the only thing that you can do is vote him out or impeach. When he wins in November, I am sure that is what the republicans will attempt to do.
You seem to be confused...invariably this often occurs. I am not supporting Obama's actions. I do not have to defend actions I do not support. Having said that, the executive branch is responsible for enforcement of the laws. If Obama is "breaking the Law" then it would have to be the Constitution, which of course sets no punishments, therefore the only thing that you can do is vote him out or impeach. When he wins in November, I am sure that is what the republicans will attempt to do.
Good day.
You think that too? I'm hoping "it ain't so" but I'm afraid that is going to be the result. Do you think the repubs will try and impeach and have Biden as the prez??? THAT is a scarey, scarey thought.
You think that too? I'm hoping "it ain't so" but I'm afraid that is going to be the result. Do you think the repubs will try and impeach and have Biden as the prez??? THAT is a scarey, scarey thought.
I believe it is a factor of how many people get out to vote. In 2008, it was a larger than normal turnout and he won. If it is a normal turnout, he will lose. He is trying to energize his base. We will just have to see how many get out to vote.
You think that too? I'm hoping "it ain't so" but I'm afraid that is going to be the result. Do you think the repubs will try and impeach and have Biden as the prez??? THAT is a scarey, scarey thought.
Not likely. The impeachment of Clinton was a disaster for R's. Obama is not dumb enough to do something so blatant as to require impeachment. R's are no more going to go thru impeachment again than D's are to pass another assault weapon ban. When you get spanked, you learn a lesson, at least for 25 years or so.
I believe it is a factor of how many people get out to vote. In 2008, it was a larger than normal turnout and he won. If it is a normal turnout, he will lose. He is trying to energize his base. We will just have to see how many get out to vote.
I disagree. He's lost significant support among independents...a lot more than he has among his base. I think independents are the key to the election. I also don't see any way that Obama can win unless his approval - which is hovering at about 45%-47% right now - comes up at least several more points. No president since 1980 running for re-election has gotten a larger percentage of the vote than his approval rating - something that hardcore Obama supporters seem to be clueless about (I am not saying you are a "hardcore" Obama supporter...because I know you're not ). The last incumbent president to overperform his approval rating was Carter in 1980...but he obviously did not overperform his approval anywhere close to enough to win.
For whatever reason, though, I still think Obama has about a 50/50 chance of winning. His approval could come up several points. I don't expect it to unless the economy improves significantly (which I don't expect), but for whatever reason I think it could. I also think third parties could get a larger share of the vote than usual, but incumbents do tend to significantly underperform their approval ratings when third parties get a large share of the vote.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 06-17-2012 at 02:38 PM..
Reason: typo
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.
THAT is a scarey, scarey thought. 
). The last incumbent president to overperform his approval rating was Carter in 1980...but he obviously did not overperform his approval anywhere close to enough to win.
