quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Obama is a "rightie," now?

Did you not read the OP?
• Instead of fortifying his legacy with economic populism, Obama has presided over an economic “recovery” where only the rich have benefited – the first “recovery” of its kind.
• It speaks volumes that President Obama agreed to cut food stamps by $8.7 billion and WIC by $93 million, but committed to spending $1 trillion over the next 30 years to upgrade our nuclear weapons stockpile.
• The rich are richer than ever before,
• President Obama has masterfully steered the benefits of the recovery to only the wealthy, while the net worth of average working Americans has dropped by 40 percent since before the recession. Today’s middle class is actually poorer than it was in 1989,
• The Dow Jones closed above 18,000 this week – the highest ever. And yet, despite an apparently surging economy, 95 percent of income gains since 2009 have gone to the richest 1 percent. Not even Ronald Reagan’s economic policies created inequality on that scale.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No, they aren't. They are characteristic of a Reagan style conservative. That's the point.
Your racism crack is just bullshit. As I noted in the OP, even the article's attempt there is thin at best.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I disagree with the characterization of President Obama being a conservative, and stand by my assertions that all politicians, from either party, line up to kneel at the feet of Big Biz, Big Money, the 1%-ers, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Sorry you weren't able to address the content instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

More interesting is the list of Reagan-style (and some Bush) objectives/consequences that Obama pursued and accomplished full-throttle (among the reasons I call him Bush Lite). And yet...these are now "liberal" accomplishments. It speaks to the surreal quality of the "debate."

I'd be interested as well in a list of accomplishments from recent Republican presidents that are really liberal objectives.

quote:

That's the discussion. If you want to play it Sanity-style, your business, but I'm not playing that game.

If you'd like to get into why the points of the article are crap, splendid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Gee...imagine...an article by someone from the farrr left seeing Obama as conservative.

Just goes to show it all depends which side of the spectrum you are on and how far along that side of the spectrum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Y'know, Muse, there are these old friends on my Facebook page who share some pretty hateful liberal propaganda pieces, and disclaim it with a "I don't agree with all the hatespeak, but the rest is ok," statement. Just ignore the bigotry of the author, and the hateful worldview, and see how cleverly the fruit basket of apples and oranges has been arranged, and what hip joke is referenced in the pose of the strawman.

If I find myself with the time for a conversation at the keys, I'm sure a better table can be found than the one you set.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Another name for that is liaise fare economics.

quote:

economics : a policy that allows businesses to operate with very little interference from the government

Full Definition of LAISSEZ-FAIRE

1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action


...

Origin of LAISSEZ-FAIRE

French laissez faire, imperative of laisser faire to let (people) do (as they choose)
First Known Use: 1825

quote:

... is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from intrusive government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights. The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let [them] do," but it broadly implies "let it be," "let them do as they will," or "leave it alone."

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I disagree with the characterization of President Obama being a conservative, and stand by my assertions that all politicians, from either party, line up to kneel at the feet of Big Biz, Big Money, the 1%-ers, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I disagree with the characterization of President Obama being a conservative, and stand by my assertions that all politicians, from either party, line up to kneel at the feet of Big Biz, Big Money, the 1%-ers, etc.

Would that mean that all politicians are conservative?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Free markets without government intervention lead to monopoly and a full scale wealth transfer to the 1% if not the .01%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Free markets without government intervention lead to monopoly and a full scale wealth transfer to the 1% if not the .01%.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I disagree with the characterization of President Obama being a conservative, and stand by my assertions that all politicians, from either party, line up to kneel at the feet of Big Biz, Big Money, the 1%-ers, etc.

Would that mean that all politicians are conservative?

I see your smiley face, and secretively (and hope that no one else sees me doing it) point to the section you quoted that includes "from either party."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I mean if such lies are impeachable, how did W survive his 1st term ?

What lies are you talking about?

Lets discussion who should have gotten impeached:
Candidate A: Lies to Congress and the nation about having sexual relationships with an intern (i.e. an affair) that doesnt effect their job duties as 'President of the United States'.
Candidate B: Lies to Congress and the nation about another nation having, and I quote, "Massive Stockpiles" of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction". That the nation's military is used to invade and control that country. By the time the lie is discovered, 3,500+ are dead US Soldiers, 32,500+ are long term injured US Soldiers, and 100,000-600,000 civilians are dead (depending on which report is believed). Not to mention spending $4 trillion of borrowed money to finance the whole thing.
And that both Candidates had Republican controlled Congresses at the time. So please tell us DS,....WHICH...of those two candidates should have been impeached for LYING?
How about those 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques' the Bush White House stated were 'perfectly lawful'? Ever heard of the 8th amendment? Do you know what it is?
An then there are those brown outages that kept hitting the nation mysteriously. That the Bush Administration brought in all the heads of the various electricity companies to the white house one day, behind closed doors and off the record to discuss 'how to fix the problem'. Soon after that, those problems....magically...disappeared. And that those companies got mysterious tax breaks soon afterward. Must be a coincidence.....right? Because the Bush Administration as.....FULLY....honest with everything, right?

Who was Candidate A?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

New Year,same old sanity....

cue the cries of personal attack.....

And these aren't?

"If you can find one conservative (on this forum or in the nation) that can admit reality that their party is full of racists (and are happy to support racism); I'll show a liberal whom doesn't like the ACA. That being racist is a virtue to conservatives. Just as being stupid, ignorant, irresponsible, unaccountable, without compassion, hateful, mean, and like to play petty games with metaphorical WMDs, is a virtue.;Ironically they have all the so called 'Christians' whom hate that people aren't forced to obey their religious lunacy too (and hate the President because he is more Christian then they are combined)!

Yes, Mr. Obama was judged much more unfairly for problems and never given any 'at-a-boys' when he did well by conservatives on this forum and in the nation. That they cant admit his accomplishments (which are many more than Mr. Reagan now). Nor acknowledge that the guy really does give a shit about the nation and the people it makes up.

All due to his skin color. How many conservatives on this forum have their J.D.'s? And are a constitutional scholar? NONE! But that doesnt stop them from coming up with completely FUBAR positions to oppose the President.(can't wait to see how you twist this argument for not speaking out against politicians next time you do and someone throws this same argument back in your face) That they feel that if someone is any color but white, they cant be accomplished, skilled, and/or educated. The President could school any of those Republican Representatives and Senators, not to mention the justices any day of the week. (your proof of this? Some story where it describes him doing so?)

Of course, its not just because he's black, but he's also a Democrat. Since conservatives hold Democrats and the President to an extremely high (if not impossible) standard. All the while giving the people they vote into office (and wield power poorly and foolishly) not an ounce of accountability or responsibility with power. An how many conservatives on here have challenged me on it? NOT A SINGLE ONE.(actually, they have. Numerous times. But because it doesn't fit your mantra that they have no challenge, you ignore them when they do). Because if they held their people they support and vote to the same level of accountability and responsibility with pclaim to the rest, which is generalizedower as the President and Democrats, this nation would have better government....virtually....overnight!

In case you aren't aware, the bolded sections are mine. I wouldn't' want to lay claim to the test of the parroted talking points which do not reflect all of those on the left...just the nut fringe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
(can't wait to see how you twist this argument for not speaking out against politicians next time you do and someone throws this same argument back in your face)