Budget talks: This is getting nasty

OK, birther, we will take your unbiased opinion.

 

The "Team of Rivals" comparisons -- as with every Lincoln comparison -- were forced and were the result of a fawning press. DKG egged them on and did every interview possible to perpetuate it and drive book sales.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer is not some new idea.

JFK didn't pick LBJ as his running mate because they were best friends. Reagan & Bush were fierce rivals.

Biden was the ultimate "no threat" choice.

Putting Hillary at State took her off the table and silenced any (ok, most) criticism from Bill.

He also appointed special envoys to every hot spot on the globe which took away a lot of her influence.

As for the debt ceiling "Grand Bargain", what cuts did he offer? Seriously? What did he agree to cut?

Like most Dem plans, I'm sure it relied heavily on Defense cuts -- including savings we may not see from ending our involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and on savings derived from cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse".

If he offered real cuts, I'd love to hear about them.

The guy is not a "compromiser". He was one of the most liberal Senators during his (brief) time there.

When he does compromise, it's with a straw man of his one making. He talks a good game, "Some critics say." And, he describes his position as some balanced, nuanced, position.

But it's not. He fights for far left positions. And when he doesn't get them, it's because he can't. Because the public won't accept it. Because politicians from his own party won't back him. And/or because voters have sent reinforcements to Congress to oppose his policies.

And it kills him.

 

No problem, truther.

 

YF -- agree to disagree, we are spinning our wheels on a basic matter of opinion. No prob.

But regarding spending, in addition to decent-sized defense cuts, he was/is going to raise the Medicare age and offered cuts (non-specific, granted) in Social Security, whether by raising the eligibility age or reducing the benefit amounts. The idea that he was not offering cuts is not correct.

 

Carlton Banks, April 27, 2011, on a since-locked thread:

I always thought the newspaper announcements were enough to prove he was born in Hawaii. But, yes, I can see where there could have been some questions and am not narrow-minded to dismiss everyone as "racist" because the proof that was provided was not good enough to make up their minds.

In a post a few spots later, you say "I do not buy the birther scheme, but do understand how some people could want more information. If you blindly believe everything you are told because of your political bent, good for you. I can't be that narrow-minded."

How very Glenn Beckish of you: "I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'." You can search for a parallel statement from me regarding 9/11 if you like.

My point being, your appraisal of Obama's presidency and his 2012 chances is perhaps tinged by some irrational and irrelevant thoughts.

 

I never said I was not biased against Obama losing. And I am willing to see the flaws in my side's candidates. You, on the other hand, are not. You, my son, are a true believer. And you are going to be one sad dude in Nov. 2012.

How about a bet. Obama loses, you leave the boards forever. He wins and I leave. Well, what says you?

 

Either way, the rest of us win.

Kidding. Kidding. I love you both.

But, hey guys, we're 93 pages into a political thread.

Let's not fuck it up and get it locked.

 

The voice of reason. You are correct, sir. Apologies.

 

Good point, sir.

 

The left has had plenty of criticism of the president, or as you call him their "lord and savior, Barack Hussein Obama" (always with the middle name), CB. Where have you been?

 

And perhaps not posting more political threads would be a good idea too. The PTB have allowed this one to stay up, but I don't know if they want multiple political threads on here. Maybe this could be The Politics Thread instead of a politics thread.

 

Inky, you are a brilliant man (okay, that' a little overboard). Thats a good idea.