(05-12-2017 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Fair enough that the term "chastise" probably isn't the correct term to use, nor was it right in terms of the 'extremism' implication of it. Good point.

I still stand by my assertion about "lines being crossed" (or the lack thereof), which was the main point of my reply.

I like and respect RiceLad, even though if it came down to it he and I would probably not agree on many policy points. But, I will say, and with no rancor intended, that RiceLad's 'line being crossed' threshold was/is pretty small, perhaps even to the point of it not even really being existent at Inauguration Day.

Nothing wrong with that at all, it is a free country to think what you want, and discuss upon it.

But the comparison being laid down of whether whose 'line length' is longer seems somewhat superfluous given the rather infinitesimally thin line length for those whom probably never supported Trump over Hillary in the first place. Sorry to get your dander up about that observation.

Be good and have a great weekend.

I had hope for the POTUS on inauguration day.

It's just that my blind hope of him transforming into a normal human being evaporated pretty quickly because of the foundation he laid. I don't think he has done anything yet that, with what is known, amounts to an impeachable offense.

However, there are just so many ridiculous situations/instances that he has been involved with, and continues to be involved with, that I have no idea how a sane person can continue to try and defend his actions. I can understand saying he doesn't deserved to be impeached, but not that he is failing spectacularly at any number of aspects of his job.

(05-12-2017 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Fair enough that the term "chastise" probably isn't the correct term to use, nor was it right in terms of the 'extremism' implication of it. Good point.

I still stand by my assertion about "lines being crossed" (or the lack thereof), which was the main point of my reply.

I like and respect RiceLad, even though if it came down to it he and I would probably not agree on many policy points. But, I will say, and with no rancor intended, that RiceLad's 'line being crossed' threshold was/is pretty small, perhaps even to the point of it not even really being existent at Inauguration Day.

Nothing wrong with that at all, it is a free country to think what you want, and discuss upon it.

But the comparison being laid down of whether whose 'line length' is longer seems somewhat superfluous given the rather infinitesimally thin line length for those whom probably never supported Trump over Hillary in the first place. Sorry to get your dander up about that observation.

Be good and have a great weekend.

I had hope for the POTUS on inauguration day.

It's just that my blind hope of him transforming into a normal human being evaporated pretty quickly because of the foundation he laid. I don't think he has done anything yet that, with what is known, amounts to an impeachable offense.

However, there are just so many ridiculous situations/instances that he has been involved with, and continues to be involved with, that I have no idea how a sane person can continue to try and defend his actions. I can understand saying he doesn't deserved to be impeached, but not that he is failing spectacularly at any number of aspects of his job.

Yeah, I had hope for Obama on Inauguration Day, 2009. I hoped he would move toward the middle. I was disappointed in that.

(05-12-2017 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Fair enough that the term "chastise" probably isn't the correct term to use, nor was it right in terms of the 'extremism' implication of it. Good point.

I still stand by my assertion about "lines being crossed" (or the lack thereof), which was the main point of my reply.

I like and respect RiceLad, even though if it came down to it he and I would probably not agree on many policy points. But, I will say, and with no rancor intended, that RiceLad's 'line being crossed' threshold was/is pretty small, perhaps even to the point of it not even really being existent at Inauguration Day.

Nothing wrong with that at all, it is a free country to think what you want, and discuss upon it.

But the comparison being laid down of whether whose 'line length' is longer seems somewhat superfluous given the rather infinitesimally thin line length for those whom probably never supported Trump over Hillary in the first place. Sorry to get your dander up about that observation.

Be good and have a great weekend.

I had hope for the POTUS on inauguration day.

It's just that my blind hope of him transforming into a normal human being evaporated pretty quickly because of the foundation he laid. I don't think he has done anything yet that, with what is known, amounts to an impeachable offense.

However, there are just so many ridiculous situations/instances that he has been involved with, and continues to be involved with, that I have no idea how a sane person can continue to try and defend his actions. I can understand saying he doesn't deserved to be impeached, but not that he is failing spectacularly at any number of aspects of his job.

Yeah, I had hope for Obama on Inauguration Day, 2009. I hoped he would move toward the middle. I was disappointed in that.

Which to me, is pretty laughable because he didn't actually move that left. He didn't ram through single payer healthcare, he stole no guns, taxes were only raised just slightly at the top of the tax bracket, drugs were not decriminalized nationwide, and the rate of spending increase stopped and we eventually saw reductions in the deficit each year the last 5 or 6 years of his presidency.

I won't go further down this rabbit hole, but when you say he didn't pivot towards the middle, what policies disappointed you and weren't more centrist? I'm genuinely curious about what policies he actually enacted that were too far left. The auto bailout and stimulus?

(05-12-2017 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Fair enough that the term "chastise" probably isn't the correct term to use, nor was it right in terms of the 'extremism' implication of it. Good point.

I still stand by my assertion about "lines being crossed" (or the lack thereof), which was the main point of my reply.

I like and respect RiceLad, even though if it came down to it he and I would probably not agree on many policy points. But, I will say, and with no rancor intended, that RiceLad's 'line being crossed' threshold was/is pretty small, perhaps even to the point of it not even really being existent at Inauguration Day.

Nothing wrong with that at all, it is a free country to think what you want, and discuss upon it.

But the comparison being laid down of whether whose 'line length' is longer seems somewhat superfluous given the rather infinitesimally thin line length for those whom probably never supported Trump over Hillary in the first place. Sorry to get your dander up about that observation.

Be good and have a great weekend.

I had hope for the POTUS on inauguration day.

It's just that my blind hope of him transforming into a normal human being evaporated pretty quickly because of the foundation he laid. I don't think he has done anything yet that, with what is known, amounts to an impeachable offense.

However, there are just so many ridiculous situations/instances that he has been involved with, and continues to be involved with, that I have no idea how a sane person can continue to try and defend his actions. I can understand saying he doesn't deserved to be impeached, but not that he is failing spectacularly at any number of aspects of his job.

Yeah, I had hope for Obama on Inauguration Day, 2009. I hoped he would move toward the middle. I was disappointed in that.

Which to me, is pretty laughable because he didn't actually move that left. He didn't ram through single payer healthcare, he stole no guns, taxes were only raised just slightly at the top of the tax bracket, drugs were not decriminalized nationwide, and the rate of spending increase stopped and we eventually saw reductions in the deficit each year the last 5 or 6 years of his presidency.

I won't go further down this rabbit hole, but when you say he didn't pivot towards the middle, what policies disappointed you and weren't more centrist? I'm genuinely curious about what policies he actually enacted that were too far left. The auto bailout and stimulus?

i had hoped he would move to the middle, which in his case would be a move to the right. o, when you he didn't move that far left, iany movement to the left was not what I wamted. Often camdidate preach left to their base, work toward the middle to get bipartisan suppot.

What did he do that I liked, would be a much shorter list.

1. Gave the order to proceed on bin Laden.

Guess that's it. i didn't like publicizing a date certain to withdraw from Iraq, I didn't like Cash for Clunkers. Name some other things he did, and I will respnd to the list.

(05-12-2017 03:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Fair enough that the term "chastise" probably isn't the correct term to use, nor was it right in terms of the 'extremism' implication of it. Good point.

I still stand by my assertion about "lines being crossed" (or the lack thereof), which was the main point of my reply.

I like and respect RiceLad, even though if it came down to it he and I would probably not agree on many policy points. But, I will say, and with no rancor intended, that RiceLad's 'line being crossed' threshold was/is pretty small, perhaps even to the point of it not even really being existent at Inauguration Day.

Nothing wrong with that at all, it is a free country to think what you want, and discuss upon it.

But the comparison being laid down of whether whose 'line length' is longer seems somewhat superfluous given the rather infinitesimally thin line length for those whom probably never supported Trump over Hillary in the first place. Sorry to get your dander up about that observation.

Be good and have a great weekend.

I had hope for the POTUS on inauguration day.

It's just that my blind hope of him transforming into a normal human being evaporated pretty quickly because of the foundation he laid. I don't think he has done anything yet that, with what is known, amounts to an impeachable offense.

However, there are just so many ridiculous situations/instances that he has been involved with, and continues to be involved with, that I have no idea how a sane person can continue to try and defend his actions. I can understand saying he doesn't deserved to be impeached, but not that he is failing spectacularly at any number of aspects of his job.

Yeah, I had hope for Obama on Inauguration Day, 2009. I hoped he would move toward the middle. I was disappointed in that.

Which to me, is pretty laughable because he didn't actually move that left. He didn't ram through single payer healthcare, he stole no guns, taxes were only raised just slightly at the top of the tax bracket, drugs were not decriminalized nationwide, and the rate of spending increase stopped and we eventually saw reductions in the deficit each year the last 5 or 6 years of his presidency.

I won't go further down this rabbit hole, but when you say he didn't pivot towards the middle, what policies disappointed you and weren't more centrist? I'm genuinely curious about what policies he actually enacted that were too far left. The auto bailout and stimulus?

i had hoped he would move to the middle, which in his case would be a move to the right. o, when you he didn't move that far left, iany movement to the left was not what I wamted. Often camdidate preach left to their base, work toward the middle to get bipartisan suppot.

What did he do that I liked, would be a much shorter list.

1. Gave the order to proceed on bin Laden.

Guess that's it. i didn't like publicizing a date certain to withdraw from Iraq, I didn't like Cash for Clunkers. Name some other things he did, and I will respnd to the list.

But what did he do that was so far left? And why do you view those items as too liberal?

I ask, because a common complaint from liberals is that Obama didn't be actually oversee a lot of progressive change, that he stayed too close to center on things like taxes, healthcare, infrastructure spending, marijuana, use of military force (mainly drones), etc.

I'm genuinely interested in the actions you viewed as too liberal. I assume the policy of non-intervention in Syria is one?

Name a situation where Obama took any option other that the furthest left available to him?

I hear the argument that if he were really a socialist/communist, then Obamacare would have been single payer, or at least had a public option. But the reason Obamacare doesn't have those things is not because Obama didn't want them. It doesn't have them because a majority of the two houses of congress didn't want them. As is, the bill passed with the skinniest of skinny margins, and only after some extreme legislative trickery in the senate. Obama made it very clear that he wanted single payer. But fortunately he didn't have the votes. So he moved the needle as far left as he could. If single payer is going to be the mark of a socialist/communist, then Obama is clearly a socialist/communist.

If Obama hod gotten his way, IMO we'd be either a socialist/communist "workers' paradise," or at best well on the road to being there. To me the scariest things about Obama leading up to the election were the stories about how he had brought the members of the Illinois together to vote in several ill-conceived and stupid pieces of legislation. Oh boy, I thought, if he can do that in Washington, DC, then we are in for a world of hurt. Fortunately, he couldn't. What I didn't count on is that he'd be such an incompetent, arrogant, condescending, narcissistic a-hole that he couldn't get people to work with him. Not all that surprising in retrospect, but a pleasant surprise as it played out.

(05-12-2017 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Name a situation where Obama took any option other that the furthest left available to him?

I hear the argument that if he were really a socialist/communist, then Obamacare would have been single payer, or at least had a public option. But the reason Obamacare doesn't have those things is not because Obama didn't want them. It doesn't have them because a majority of the two houses of congress didn't want them. As is, the bill passed with the skinniest of skinny margins, and only after some extreme legislative trickery in the senate. Obama made it very clear that he wanted single payer. But fortunately he didn't have the votes. So he moved the needle as far left as he could. If single payer is going to be the mark of a socialist/communist, then Obama is clearly a socialist/communist.

If Obama hod gotten his way, IMO we'd be either a socialist/communist "workers' paradise," or at best well on the road to being there. To me the scariest things about Obama leading up to the election were the stories about how he had brought the members of the Illinois together to vote in several ill-conceived and stupid pieces of legislation. Oh boy, I thought, if he can do that in Washington, DC, then we are in for a world of hurt. Fortunately, he couldn't. What I didn't count on is that he'd be such an incompetent, arrogant, condescending, narcissistic a-hole that he couldn't get people to work with him. Not all that surprising in retrospect, but a pleasant surprise as it played out.

You forgot "uppity."

(05-12-2017 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Name a situation where Obama took any option other that the furthest left available to him?

I hear the argument that if he were really a socialist/communist, then Obamacare would have been single payer, or at least had a public option. But the reason Obamacare doesn't have those things is not because Obama didn't want them. It doesn't have them because a majority of the two houses of congress didn't want them. As is, the bill passed with the skinniest of skinny margins, and only after some extreme legislative trickery in the senate. Obama made it very clear that he wanted single payer. But fortunately he didn't have the votes. So he moved the needle as far left as he could. If single payer is going to be the mark of a socialist/communist, then Obama is clearly a socialist/communist.

If Obama hod gotten his way, IMO we'd be either a socialist/communist "workers' paradise," or at best well on the road to being there. To me the scariest things about Obama leading up to the election were the stories about how he had brought the members of the Illinois together to vote in several ill-conceived and stupid pieces of legislation. Oh boy, I thought, if he can do that in Washington, DC, then we are in for a world of hurt. Fortunately, he couldn't. What I didn't count on is that he'd be such an incompetent, arrogant, condescending, narcissistic a-hole that he couldn't get people to work with him. Not all that surprising in retrospect, but a pleasant surprise as it played out.

Not pushing for gun control legislation. Not pushing for an increase on taxes to, say, the same levels seen in the 1950s. Not pushing for an increase in deficit spending (and actually reducing it). Pushing for passage of the TPP (how is that socialist at all???). Continuing the use of drone strikes in foreign countries (that may be more of an anti-progressive stance if anything I admit).

This is why I'm interested in the tangible items or proposals Obama proposed, because outside of single payer, all you did was provide some perceived personality traits to support your assertion that Obama was a communist/socialist.

There is a big gap in the political spectrum between moderate and communist/socialist, and I don't know why you think he doesn't fall somewhere in between there.

(05-12-2017 05:00 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Name a situation where Obama took any option other that the furthest left available to him?

I hear the argument that if he were really a socialist/communist, then Obamacare would have been single payer, or at least had a public option. But the reason Obamacare doesn't have those things is not because Obama didn't want them. It doesn't have them because a majority of the two houses of congress didn't want them. As is, the bill passed with the skinniest of skinny margins, and only after some extreme legislative trickery in the senate. Obama made it very clear that he wanted single payer. But fortunately he didn't have the votes. So he moved the needle as far left as he could. If single payer is going to be the mark of a socialist/communist, then Obama is clearly a socialist/communist.

If Obama hod gotten his way, IMO we'd be either a socialist/communist "workers' paradise," or at best well on the road to being there. To me the scariest things about Obama leading up to the election were the stories about how he had brought the members of the Illinois together to vote in several ill-conceived and stupid pieces of legislation. Oh boy, I thought, if he can do that in Washington, DC, then we are in for a world of hurt. Fortunately, he couldn't. What I didn't count on is that he'd be such an incompetent, arrogant, condescending, narcissistic a-hole that he couldn't get people to work with him. Not all that surprising in retrospect, but a pleasant surprise as it played out.

You forgot "uppity."

And the race card is played.

(05-12-2017 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I had hope for the POTUS on inauguration day.

It's just that my blind hope of him transforming into a normal human being evaporated pretty quickly because of the foundation he laid. I don't think he has done anything yet that, with what is known, amounts to an impeachable offense.

However, there are just so many ridiculous situations/instances that he has been involved with, and continues to be involved with, that I have no idea how a sane person can continue to try and defend his actions. I can understand saying he doesn't deserved to be impeached, but not that he is failing spectacularly at any number of aspects of his job.

Yeah, I had hope for Obama on Inauguration Day, 2009. I hoped he would move toward the middle. I was disappointed in that.

Which to me, is pretty laughable because he didn't actually move that left. He didn't ram through single payer healthcare, he stole no guns, taxes were only raised just slightly at the top of the tax bracket, drugs were not decriminalized nationwide, and the rate of spending increase stopped and we eventually saw reductions in the deficit each year the last 5 or 6 years of his presidency.

I won't go further down this rabbit hole, but when you say he didn't pivot towards the middle, what policies disappointed you and weren't more centrist? I'm genuinely curious about what policies he actually enacted that were too far left. The auto bailout and stimulus?

i had hoped he would move to the middle, which in his case would be a move to the right. o, when you he didn't move that far left, iany movement to the left was not what I wamted. Often camdidate preach left to their base, work toward the middle to get bipartisan suppot.

What did he do that I liked, would be a much shorter list.

1. Gave the order to proceed on bin Laden.

Guess that's it. i didn't like publicizing a date certain to withdraw from Iraq, I didn't like Cash for Clunkers. Name some other things he did, and I will respnd to the list.

But what did he do that was so far left? And why do you view those items as too liberal?

I ask, because a common complaint from liberals is that Obama didn't be actually oversee a lot of progressive change, that he stayed too close to center on things like taxes, healthcare, infrastructure spending, marijuana, use of military force (mainly drones), etc.

I'm genuinely interested in the actions you viewed as too liberal. I assume the policy of non-intervention in Syria is one?

Th policy of nonintervention everywhere is something disliked about him, but I don't know if if should be called "liberal".

Nonintervention in Iran, Crimea, Ukraine. The only country in the Middle East he didn't back away from was Israel.

Hated the Iran deal and paying the ransom.

Hated dropping the missile defense shield and the toadying to Russia. How ironic is,that?

I guess the second best thing he was to pardon the Thanksgivng turkeys.

(05-12-2017 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not pushing for gun control legislation. Not pushing for an increase on taxes to, say, the same levels seen in the 1950s. Not pushing for an increase in deficit spending (and actually reducing it). Pushing for passage of the TPP (how is that socialist at all???). Continuing the use of drone strikes in foreign countries (that may be more of an anti-progressive stance if anything I admit).

But those paths not taken were not as a practical matter available to him. He didn't have the votes to pass gun control. He certainly made his support for extreme gun control measures well known. He didn't have the votes to raise taxes to 1950s level, nor did he wish to preside over the economic horror that would have brought. Do that, and you're going at becoming the next Zimbabwe in terms of capital flight. He didn't reduce the deficit until the republicans took the house and forced the issue. The TPP doesn't really lie anywhere in particular along the socialist-capitalist axis, but would clearly be a step toward globalism which seems to be a major tenet of modern progressive/socialist/communist rhetoric. As fares drones, I'm not aware of any instances where socialists/communists have been loathe to use military force against civilians.

(05-12-2017 05:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, I had hope for Obama on Inauguration Day, 2009. I hoped he would move toward the middle. I was disappointed in that.

Which to me, is pretty laughable because he didn't actually move that left. He didn't ram through single payer healthcare, he stole no guns, taxes were only raised just slightly at the top of the tax bracket, drugs were not decriminalized nationwide, and the rate of spending increase stopped and we eventually saw reductions in the deficit each year the last 5 or 6 years of his presidency.

I won't go further down this rabbit hole, but when you say he didn't pivot towards the middle, what policies disappointed you and weren't more centrist? I'm genuinely curious about what policies he actually enacted that were too far left. The auto bailout and stimulus?

i had hoped he would move to the middle, which in his case would be a move to the right. o, when you he didn't move that far left, iany movement to the left was not what I wamted. Often camdidate preach left to their base, work toward the middle to get bipartisan suppot.

What did he do that I liked, would be a much shorter list.

1. Gave the order to proceed on bin Laden.

Guess that's it. i didn't like publicizing a date certain to withdraw from Iraq, I didn't like Cash for Clunkers. Name some other things he did, and I will respnd to the list.

But what did he do that was so far left? And why do you view those items as too liberal?

I ask, because a common complaint from liberals is that Obama didn't be actually oversee a lot of progressive change, that he stayed too close to center on things like taxes, healthcare, infrastructure spending, marijuana, use of military force (mainly drones), etc.

I'm genuinely interested in the actions you viewed as too liberal. I assume the policy of non-intervention in Syria is one?

Th policy of nonintervention everywhere is something disliked about him, but I don't know if if should be called "liberal".

Nonintervention in Iran, Crimea, Ukraine. The only country in the Middle East he didn't back away from was Israel.

Hated the Iran deal and paying the ransom.

Hated dropping the missile defense shield and the toadying to Russia. How ironic is,that?

I guess the second best thing he was to pardon the Thanksgivng turkeys.

So foreign policy was where your gripes were? No domestic issues besides cash for clunkers?

My list of Obama's greatest accomplishments:

1) Was president when SEAL Team SIX got bin Laden.
2) Was president when SEAL Team SIX rescued the merchant marine captain held by pirates
3) As a concession to OO, pardoned the Thanksgiving turkeys

(05-12-2017 05:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not pushing for gun control legislation. Not pushing for an increase on taxes to, say, the same levels seen in the 1950s. Not pushing for an increase in deficit spending (and actually reducing it). Pushing for passage of the TPP (how is that socialist at all???). Continuing the use of drone strikes in foreign countries (that may be more of an anti-progressive stance if anything I admit).

But those paths not taken were not as a practical matter available to him. He didn't have the votes to pass gun control. He certainly made his support for extreme gun control measures well known. He didn't have the votes to raise taxes to 1950s level, nor did he wish to preside over the economic horror that would have brought. Do that, and you're going at becoming the next Zimbabwe in terms of capital flight. He didn't reduce the deficit until the republicans took the house and forced the issue. The TPP doesn't really lie anywhere in particular along the socialist-capitalist axis, but would clearly be a step toward globalism which seems to be a major tenet of modern progressive/socialist/communist rhetoric. As fares drones, I'm not aware of any instances where socialists/communists have been loathe to use military force against civilians.

I did say that the last item may be more of a progressive issue.

So if I understand things correctly, there is no actual legislation he tried to introduce or push that backs up the socialist/communist label, right? But deep down inside, he wanted to be one, he just decided to hide it all since the Reps held the House and Senate?

This is what I was getting at - a lot of the talk from you and others on this board about liberal candidates tries to pain them as these socialist/communists, but really, they are just on the liberal end of the spectrum.

(05-12-2017 05:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 05:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which to me, is pretty laughable because he didn't actually move that left. He didn't ram through single payer healthcare, he stole no guns, taxes were only raised just slightly at the top of the tax bracket, drugs were not decriminalized nationwide, and the rate of spending increase stopped and we eventually saw reductions in the deficit each year the last 5 or 6 years of his presidency.

I won't go further down this rabbit hole, but when you say he didn't pivot towards the middle, what policies disappointed you and weren't more centrist? I'm genuinely curious about what policies he actually enacted that were too far left. The auto bailout and stimulus?

i had hoped he would move to the middle, which in his case would be a move to the right. o, when you he didn't move that far left, iany movement to the left was not what I wamted. Often camdidate preach left to their base, work toward the middle to get bipartisan suppot.

What did he do that I liked, would be a much shorter list.

1. Gave the order to proceed on bin Laden.

Guess that's it. i didn't like publicizing a date certain to withdraw from Iraq, I didn't like Cash for Clunkers. Name some other things he did, and I will respnd to the list.

But what did he do that was so far left? And why do you view those items as too liberal?

I ask, because a common complaint from liberals is that Obama didn't be actually oversee a lot of progressive change, that he stayed too close to center on things like taxes, healthcare, infrastructure spending, marijuana, use of military force (mainly drones), etc.

I'm genuinely interested in the actions you viewed as too liberal. I assume the policy of non-intervention in Syria is one?

Th policy of nonintervention everywhere is something disliked about him, but I don't know if if should be called "liberal".

Nonintervention in Iran, Crimea, Ukraine. The only country in the Middle East he didn't back away from was Israel.

Hated the Iran deal and paying the ransom.

Hated dropping the missile defense shield and the toadying to Russia. How ironic is,that?

I guess the second best thing he was to pardon the Thanksgivng turkeys.

So foreign policy was where your gripes were? No domestic issues besides cash for clunkers?

Obamacare. But as I said earlier, some issues have a higher priority for me that others, and foreign policy is one of the highest. I hated his snubbing of Netanyahu, while at the same kissing Putin's rear. I hated his inaction.


Perhaps if you can list a few of his domestic actions, I could rate them A to F in an individual basis.

(05-12-2017 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So if I understand things correctly, there is no actual legislation he tried to introduce or push that backs up the socialist/communist label, right? But deep down inside, he wanted to be one, he just decided to hide it all since the Reps held the House and Senate?

You don't understand correctly.

Presidents don't introduce legislation in our system. Senators and representatives do.

Obama made no secret the he wanted single payer. But he couldn't pass the law himself. Congress had to do that. And wouldn't.

Obama made no secret that he wanted significant gun controls. But very few senators and representatives would go along.

There are other issues where his speeches and writings make it clear that he favored socialistic/communist positions on a number of issues. That he couldn't get legislation passed to accomplish them doesn't move him to the right politically.

And republicans didn't hold either house for the first two years, in fact he had supermajorities in both, and didn't take the senate until the last two, so the comment about republicans holding the house and senate is simply false.

Quote:This is what I was getting at - a lot of the talk from you and others on this board about liberal candidates tries to pain them as these socialist/communists, but really, they are just on the liberal end of the spectrum.

Last I checked, socialism/communism WAS the liberal end of the spectrum.

(05-12-2017 05:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So if I understand things correctly, there is no actual legislation he tried to introduce or push that backs up the socialist/communist label, right? But deep down inside, he wanted to be one, he just decided to hide it all since the Reps held the House and Senate?

You don't understand correctly.

Presidents don't introduce legislation in our system. Senators and representatives do.

Obama made no secret the he wanted single payer. But he couldn't pass the law himself. Congress had to do that. And wouldn't.

Obama made no secret that he wanted significant gun controls. But very few senators and representatives would go along.

There are other issues where his speeches and writings make it clear that he favored socialistic/communist positions on a number of issues. That he couldn't get legislation passed to accomplish them doesn't move him to the right politically.

And republicans didn't hold either house for the first two years, in fact he had supermajorities in both, and didn't take the senate until the last two, so the comment about republicans holding the house and senate is simply false.

Quote:This is what I was getting at - a lot of the talk from you and others on this board about liberal candidates tries to pain them as these socialist/communists, but really, they are just on the liberal end of the spectrum.

Last I checked, socialism/communism WAS the liberal end of the spectrum.

Oh, so anything left of center = communism.

This makes sense now.

(05-12-2017 06:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh, so anything left of center = communism.
This makes sense now.

No, and that's not even remotely close to what I said, is it?

The left END of the spectrum is socialism/communism. The left side of the left side, not left of center.

If you're going to pervert my comments like that, not much point in trying to have a discussion, is there?

So, Lad, what are the domestic and foreign initiatives of Obama that you are proudest of, and why?

(05-12-2017 06:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 06:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh, so anything left of center = communism.
This makes sense now.

No, and that's not even remotely close to what I said, is it?

The left END of the spectrum is socialism/communism. The left side of the left side, not left of center.

If you're going to pervert my comments like that, not much point in trying to have a discussion, is there?

You are perverting my comments. That was why I responded in that manner.

I was describing the side of the spectrum - conservative or liberal. I'm not so dense to not know that on the far left you get communism or socialism.

And to your comment about Obama having a super majority and not pushing through his supposed communist goals- thanks for helping make my point. I knew he had two years of a super majority, but since you were using the fact that congress stood in his way as an excuse as to why we did not see his communist goals come to fruition, I was responding to that situation.

It would have been much easier for me to point to the fact that in the two years with a super majority, comrade Obama didn't turn us into a communist country because he isn't a communist.