The 2016 Republican National Convention

[ZRod]

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of data that gives credence to my statement about Obama being more socialist than anything even remotely close to republican.. I mentioned his upbringing and those around me being communist.

 

Those are facts... His mentor Frank Marshall Davis is a communist.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/obamas-influential-communist-mentor/

 

 

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past.

 

I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President.

 

• In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done.

 

• When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist.

 

• Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama.

 

• Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it.

 

• His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore.

 

If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved.

 

But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in.

 

If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd.

I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual.

 

I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this.

 

Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion?

 

 

it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become..

 

 

EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned!

Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord...

So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion.

 

I guess you don't understand..

No it's not all opinion, you just said as much.

The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme.

The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have.

 

if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with.

Again, you not reading what I wrote. I'm just going to let this one die.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of data that gives credence to my statement about Obama being more socialist than anything even remotely close to republican.. I mentioned his upbringing and those around me being communist.

 

Those are facts... His mentor Frank Marshall Davis is a communist.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/obamas-influential-communist-mentor/

 

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past.

 

I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President.

 

• In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done.

 

• When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist.

 

• Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama.

 

• Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it.

 

• His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore.

 

If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved.

 

But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in.

 

If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd.

I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual.

 

I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this.

 

Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion?

 

 

it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become..

 

 

EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned!

Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord...

So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion.

 

I guess you don't understand..

No it's not all opinion, you just said as much.

The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme.

The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have.

 

if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with.

Again, you not reading what I wrote. I'm just going to let this one die.

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of data that gives credence to my statement about Obama being more socialist than anything even remotely close to republican.. I mentioned his upbringing and those around me being communist.

 

Those are facts... His mentor Frank Marshall Davis is a communist.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/obamas-influential-communist-mentor/

 

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past.

 

I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President.

 

• In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done.

 

• When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist.

 

• Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama.

 

• Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it.

 

• His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore.

 

If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved.

 

But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in.

 

If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd.

I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual.

 

I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this.

 

Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion?

 

 

it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become..

 

 

EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned!

Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord...

So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion.

 

I guess you don't understand..

No it's not all opinion, you just said as much.

 

The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme.

 

 

The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have.

 

if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with.

 

 

Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal.

 

I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place.

 

But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of data that gives credence to my statement about Obama being more socialist than anything even remotely close to republican.. I mentioned his upbringing and those around me being communist.

 

Those are facts... His mentor Frank Marshall Davis is a communist.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/obamas-influential-communist-mentor/

 

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past.

 

I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President.

 

• In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done.

 

• When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist.

 

• Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama.

 

• Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it.

 

• His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore.

 

If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved.

 

But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in.

 

If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd.

I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual.

 

I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this.

 

Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion?

 

 

it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become..

 

 

EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned!

Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord...

So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion.

 

I guess you don't understand..

No it's not all opinion, you just said as much.

 

The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme.

 

 

The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have.

 

if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with.

 

 

Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal.

 

I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place.

 

But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable.

 

 

Good Lord, little fella, I never said you did.

 

I did refute them by the way. In case you ignored what I said I will say it again..

 

Just because one thing happens it doesn't mean someone should do this or that, or hell, anything. You claim that automatically proves he isn't this or that.. because of these non-actions. It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is he didn't do what you thought he should do in order to prove something.

 

In other words, you have one fact, the financial situation, and then make claims about something YOU think he should have done (based on your opinion) if he was a socialist or communist.

[huKSer]

Ivanka looked and sounded more professional & inspiring then many of the politicians who typically give these type of speeches. She did a great job. First time I've heard her speak.

Not a fan of The Apprentice?

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of data that gives credence to my statement about Obama being more socialist than anything even remotely close to republican.. I mentioned his upbringing and those around me being communist.

 

Those are facts... His mentor Frank Marshall Davis is a communist.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/obamas-influential-communist-mentor/

 

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past.

 

I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President.

 

• In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done.

 

• When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist.

 

• Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama.

 

• Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it.

 

• His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore.

 

If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved.

 

But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in.

 

If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd.

I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual.

 

I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this.

 

Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion?

 

 

it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become..

 

 

EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned!

Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord...

So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion.

 

I guess you don't understand..

No it's not all opinion, you just said as much.

 

The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme.

 

 

The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have.

 

if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with.

 

 

Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal.

 

I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place.

 

But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable.

 

 

Good Lord, little fella, I never said you did.

 

I did refute them by the way. In case you ignored what I said I will say it again..

 

Just because one thing happens it doesn't mean someone should do this or that, or hell, anything. You claim that automatically proves he isn't this or that.. because of these non-actions. It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is he didn't do what you thought he should do in order to prove something.

 

In other words, you have one fact, the financial situation, and then make claims about something YOU think he should have done (based on your opinion) if he was a socialist or communist.

 

So then we shouldn't call him a socialist or a communist then, right?

 

Because if he did do something that would be considered leaning towards socialism or communism, he wouldn't necessarily be one.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of data that gives credence to my statement about Obama being more socialist than anything even remotely close to republican.. I mentioned his upbringing and those around me being communist.

 

Those are facts... His mentor Frank Marshall Davis is a communist.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/obamas-influential-communist-mentor/

 

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past.

 

I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President.

 

• In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done.

 

• When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist.

 

• Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama.

 

• Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it.

 

• His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore.

 

If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved.

 

But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in.

 

If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd.

I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual.

 

I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this.

 

Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion?

 

 

it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become..

 

 

EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned!

Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord...

So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion.

 

I guess you don't understand..

No it's not all opinion, you just said as much.

 

The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme.

 

 

The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have.

 

if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with.

 

 

Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal.

 

I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place.

 

But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable.

 

 

Good Lord, little fella, I never said you did.

 

I did refute them by the way. In case you ignored what I said I will say it again..

 

Just because one thing happens it doesn't mean someone should do this or that, or hell, anything. You claim that automatically proves he isn't this or that.. because of these non-actions. It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is he didn't do what you thought he should do in order to prove something.

 

In other words, you have one fact, the financial situation, and then make claims about something YOU think he should have done (based on your opinion) if he was a socialist or communist.

 

So then we shouldn't call him a socialist or a communist then, right?

 

Because if he did do something that would be considered leaning towards socialism or communism, he wouldn't necessarily be one.

 

 

That is a very good point, the difference here is the totality of evidence.. an action or inaction does not prove either, that is correct. That is why I posted the info I did, which included his voting record and his upbringing, as well as those that mentored him.

 

Thank you for making that point!

[JJ Husker]

 

I'm sorry, JJ, I can't agree. The GOP has (among other things) a racism problem, and Trump has brought it out to the fore. There / are / many, many /other /examples ... without even touching a single one of Trump's words, but his rhetoric is also not hard to parse.

To call that acknowledgment the actual stereotyping, the actual prejudice is the sort of bizarro countershot right out of Trump's playbook, and I have no idea why someone as thoroughly reasonable as you are going full throttle with it.

"There are good and bad apples in any group"? "All things change"? Goodness, of course; we may as well not have any discussions because anything can be anything. Yeah, not everyone who supports Trump is the same as that woman. Or this Trump advisor. Or this convention speaker. Or this prominent GOP Congressman. Or ...

So, sure. Let's normalize. Let's permit. Let's "not stereotype." Let's pretend these are random, isolated pieces from which we can draw zero inferences -- and not shared reflections of the ugly animus that has catapulted Trump to the top of the 2016 GOP ticket. Because it really is pretending, at this point.

(I've never said that *every* GOP or Trump supporter is a racist, by the way -- or if I did, I misspoke. If that's what touched a nerve, then perhaps we can have a detente here. The entire point of my post was to call on GOP folks to join the many others who have already repudiated this horror show.)

 

I guess we'll have to disagree on the usefulness of the approach.

 

To be clear, I am no longer a GOP supporter (although I still appreciate most of what the party used to strive for) and I never have been a fan of Trump. However, there are still good, well intentioned people within the Republican party. It seemed to me that you were lumping them all into some sort of racist basket and blaming the entire group for the distasteful actions of some.

 

I guess if we get just a couple more examples of BLM members run amok or Muslims committing terrorist acts (as if we don't have enough already), then it will be "pretending" that those groups don't represent something far more sinister. Something tells me that you would not acknowledge that very fair equivalency in the same fashion you do with the GOP. But I don't want to be perceived as "running full throttle" with this so I'll let it go. We just look at this issue differently, as we tend to on most things.

 

As a compliment, you almost always do get me to look at things from a different perspective. I sometimes wonder if we were born on the same planet or brought up in very different circumstances. I really don't mean that in a bad way, I just have never been exposed to anyone who consistently views things in ways that seem so foreign to me. I guess that's good for both of us but it does set us up for frequent flare ups.

[Bigred_inSD]

The pay pal dude " who cares what bathroom you use . Ummmm, the group of people you are talking in front of do, bruh

[knapplc]

 

 

I'm sorry, JJ, I can't agree. The GOP has (among other things) a racism problem, and Trump has brought it out to the fore. There / are / many, many /other /examples ... without even touching a single one of Trump's words, but his rhetoric is also not hard to parse.

To call that acknowledgment the actual stereotyping, the actual prejudice is the sort of bizarro countershot right out of Trump's playbook, and I have no idea why someone as thoroughly reasonable as you are going full throttle with it.

"There are good and bad apples in any group"? "All things change"? Goodness, of course; we may as well not have any discussions because anything can be anything. Yeah, not everyone who supports Trump is the same as that woman. Or this Trump advisor. Or this convention speaker. Or this prominent GOP Congressman. Or ...

So, sure. Let's normalize. Let's permit. Let's "not stereotype." Let's pretend these are random, isolated pieces from which we can draw zero inferences -- and not shared reflections of the ugly animus that has catapulted Trump to the top of the 2016 GOP ticket. Because it really is pretending, at this point.

(I've never said that *every* GOP or Trump supporter is a racist, by the way -- or if I did, I misspoke. If that's what touched a nerve, then perhaps we can have a detente here. The entire point of my post was to call on GOP folks to join the many others who have already repudiated this horror show.)

 

I guess we'll have to disagree on the usefulness of the approach.

 

To be clear, I am no longer a GOP supporter (although I still appreciate most of what the party used to strive for) and I never have been a fan of Trump. However, there are still good, well intentioned people within the Republican party. It seemed to me that you were lumping them all into some sort of racist basket and blaming the entire group for the distasteful actions of some.

 

I guess if we get just a couple more examples of BLM members run amok or Muslims committing terrorist acts (as if we don't have enough already), then it will be "pretending" that those groups don't represent something far more sinister. Something tells me that you would not acknowledge that very fair equivalency in the same fashion you do with the GOP. But I don't want to be perceived as "running full throttle" with this so I'll let it go. We just look at this issue differently, as we tend to on most things.

 

As a compliment, you almost always do get me to look at things from a different perspective. I sometimes wonder if we were born on the same planet or brought up in very different circumstances. I really don't mean that in a bad way, I just have never been exposed to anyone who consistently views things in ways that seem so foreign to me. I guess that's good for both of us but it does set us up for frequent flare ups.

 

 

 

There's an interesting parallel between Muslims, Black Lives Matter, and the GOP. If you blame all of Muslims or all of BLM for their ills, to be fair, you have to blame all of the GOP for theirs.

 

But JJ makes a good point - he was a Republican, they basically moved away from his ideals set, so how is he supposed to combat that? The average conservative on the street, individually, can't do much. Together even in semi-large groups they probably feel like they can't do much. I imagine it's the same for Muslims, or BLM members.

[TGHusker]

In Trump's acceptance speech, he appealed to every possible fear out there including economic fear caused by trade deals and immigration policy. People vote with their pocket books - do they feel the pain that Trump painted in his speech? People want to feel safe and secure - do the voters feel that the present administration and Hillary's foreign policy have made us less safe? To the degree Trump can frame the election around those 2 questions will be the degree that determines his success.

What I fear is that the Trump speech was a preview of a tyrant. When he says that he is the only one who can solve our issues, the hair on the back of my neck arose. While he said he will be the law and order candidate, I had visions of strong arm tactics. Unfortunately, every time there is a terrorist attack, it plays into his narrative. His statements that these issues (illegal immigration, unrest in our cities, etc) will end quickly gives me pause as I wonder if he thinks he can do this with 'a pen and a cell phone' - using executive orders and working around Congress. It appears he sees himself as the country's savior, the Congress be damned (and the constitution as well) - Something us conservatives have thought about Obama. Trump also said that he won't let companies move outside of the USA without consequences. Really, that isn't how the free market works. He says he knows the political system and says I alone can fix it - what arrogance but proves he isn't without fault either - buying off politicians from both parties.

 

I contrast Trump to Reagan. While Trump appeals to our greatest fears, Reagan often appealed to our hopes, higher ideals and reminded us who we were as Americans.

 

http://www.let.rug.n...-convention.php

 

From Reagan's 1992 Repub convention speech. Note the highlighted in bold.

For me, tonight is the latest chapter in a story that began a quarter of a century ago, when the people of California entrusted me with the stewardship of their dreams.

My fellow citizens -- those of you here in this hall and those of you at home -- I want you to know that I have always had the highest respect for you, for your common sense and intelligence and for your decency. I have always believed in you and in what you could accomplish for yourselves and for others.

And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way.

My fondest hope for each one of you -- and especially for the young people here -- is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here.

May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism.

And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill.

Before I go, I would like to ask the person who has made my life's journey so meaningful, someone I have been so proud of through the years, to join me. Nancy

My fellow Americans, on behalf of both of us, goodbye, and God bless each and every one of you, and God bless this country we love.

[JJ Husker]

I thought Ivanka did a very good job with her speech and I also thought Donald showed signs of softening his approach and not coming off like a condescending, know it all ahole like he has been since the beginning of his campaign. If he would've had it dialed back like this for the last year, he might've actually had a shot. I seriously doubt there is enough time remaining for him to change most people's perception of him.

 

One thing that struck me as strange last night was the awkwardness of his embraces with his close family members. It almost seemed as if they were hired stand ins and he was afraid to actually hug them like he meant it. Came off like the typical phony Hollywood kiss kiss type of thing. IDK, maybe that's how ridiculously rich people do it....

[Red Five]

Trump back to being Trump this morning

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of data that gives credence to my statement about Obama being more socialist than anything even remotely close to republican.. I mentioned his upbringing and those around me being communist.

 

Those are facts... His mentor Frank Marshall Davis is a communist.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/obamas-influential-communist-mentor/

 

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past.

 

I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President.

 

• In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done.

 

• When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist.

 

• Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama.

 

• Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it.

 

• His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore.

 

If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved.

 

But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in.

 

If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd.

I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual.

 

I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this.

 

Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion?

 

 

it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become..

 

 

EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned!

Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord...

So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion.

 

I guess you don't understand..

No it's not all opinion, you just said as much.

 

The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme.

 

 

The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have.

 

if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with.

 

 

Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal.

 

I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place.

 

But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable.

 

 

Good Lord, little fella, I never said you did.

 

I did refute them by the way. In case you ignored what I said I will say it again..

 

Just because one thing happens it doesn't mean someone should do this or that, or hell, anything. You claim that automatically proves he isn't this or that.. because of these non-actions. It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is he didn't do what you thought he should do in order to prove something.

 

In other words, you have one fact, the financial situation, and then make claims about something YOU think he should have done (based on your opinion) if he was a socialist or communist.

 

So then we shouldn't call him a socialist or a communist then, right?

 

Because if he did do something that would be considered leaning towards socialism or communism, he wouldn't necessarily be one.

 

 

That is a very good point, the difference here is the totality of evidence.. an action or inaction does not prove either, that is correct. That is why I posted the info I did, which included his voting record and his upbringing, as well as those that mentored him.

 

Thank you for making that point!

 

 

You're silly.

 

Fact.

[HuskerNation1]

For an outsider candidate who is also a billionaire, I thought Trump came across as a guy that understands the challenges and fears of the working class, and this was a general theme through all of his children's speeches too. While I think the speech was too long, I think it hit on every single note and specifically targeted minorities, women, and the working class, and surprising the LGBT crowd too. As I've said multiple times on here, this election will come down to whether Americans want an outsider like Trump, or the candidate of the status quo in Clinton. There is a lot of anxiety in the nation with the racial unrest and the increase in terror attacks, but if we do not see any more incidents of terrorism here in the US or abroad, and we don't see any more issues of cops being shot, then voters may forget about what happened in June and July and reward Hillary at the ballots. If we continue to see unrest in the next 2 or 3 months, I think that will push Trump over the top.

 

I think the DNC will be better orchestrated next week, but Hillary has a real challenge. First, she has to present herself as likable and trustworthy, and I'm not sure how you change someone's opinion in a one hour speech. But a bigger challenge is that she will have to follow 2 great orators in Obama and Bill Clinton. Hillary is not a natural speaker, so the convention staffers will have to make sure she is not overshadowed. We will hear a lot from Hillary and Obama about the recession and claims that the economy is booming, but most middle income voters are not feeling that, so Hillary will have to look to other reasons she should be given Obama's third term.