Who's Sick Of Obama Yet?

ViRedd said:

And, you are making the common error prevalent with liberals of believing that Bush is/was a conservative. Its obvious that your personal indoctrination was a success.

Vi

Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken - GW Bush both was and is a conservative. He was a republican politician elected by the right wing.
Are you insinuating that liberals voted for him?
It's amazing to me that since he's left office as a lame duck, conservatives don't claim his as being conservative. So ensues more comedy from the GOP.
Face it: GW Bush was the embodiment of GOP failures. He was a republican and he was one of the worst presidents this country has had the misfortune of dealing with.
The GOP acted the same way with Nixon. He resigned and the right wing spin was: "he was more moderate than conservative, anyways.". Although it is funny, give me a break!

t@intshredder said:

I think you are mistaken - GW Bush both was and is a conservative. He was a republican politician elected by the right wing.
Are you insinuating that liberals voted for him?
It's amazing to me that since he's left office as a lame duck, conservatives don't claim his as being conservative. So ensues more comedy from the GOP.
Face it: GW Bush was the embodiment of GOP failures. He was a republican and he was one of the worst presidents this country has had the misfortune of dealing with.
The GOP acted the same way with Nixon. He resigned and the right wing spin was: "he was more moderate than conservative, anyways.". Although it is funny, give me a break!

Click to expand...

Bush was a Neoconservative, or a Reagan Democrat, or a RINO. The majority of his policies that resulted in the expansion of the Federal Government were not policies a true conservative/libertarian/paleo-conservative would support, because such policies go directly against the idea of individual liberty and small government.

To say that he is a conservative ignores the values that most conservatives adhere to. Bush was not a conservative, he was however a Republican (there really is a difference between the two.)

TheBrutalTruth said:

Bush was a Neoconservative, or a Reagan Democrat, or a RINO. The majority of his policies that resulted in the expansion of the Federal Government were not policies a true conservative/libertarian/paleo-conservative would support, because such policies go directly against the idea of individual liberty and small government.

To say that he is a conservative ignores the values that most conservatives adhere to. Bush was not a conservative, he was however a Republican (there really is a difference between the two.)

Click to expand...

I can agree with you that Bush leans more toward the Neocon. side. I still believe that Neocons, no matter how neo, are still conservatives.
You all (conservatives) need a true politician like Bill Buckley (RIP) to unify you and bring you back to your old school roots. Or maybe Sarah Palin is the new Bill Buckley? I'm sorry ...that's a terrible insult to the memory of Bill Buckley.

Reagan was the last conservative to hold the high office.

t@intshredder said:

I can agree with you that Bush leans more toward the Neocon. side. I still believe that Neocons, no matter how neo, are still conservatives.
You all (conservatives) need a true politician like Bill Buckley (RIP) to unify you and bring you back to your old school roots. Or maybe Sarah Palin is the new Bill Buckley? I'm sorry ...that's a terrible insult to the memory of Bill Buckley.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul, not Sarah Palin

CrackerJax said:

Reagan was the last conservative to hold the high office.

Click to expand...

What about Strom Thurmond?

He may have been high but not the high office... (president)

I believe that what's really happening here is that Obama is trying to force the country's liberal politics past their normal pendulum swing point. The U.S. has always relied on a more consistent balance of capitalism and socialism. Our country has survived on the ideal of having a greater capitalistic economy than a socialistic economy because it helps the books to balance better. We have survived because we've always tried to provide for the needy (I use needy, not "unfortunate" because fortune implies wealth and wealth has nothing to do with people who are just too damn lazy to work and would rather live off other's earnings) but not at the expense of hurting the providers. Kind of the same idea as "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few. Unfortunately (the word used properly here, not some convoluded liberal idea of "unfortunate") the "few" are now becoming the many, and the "many (the ambitious workers)" are now becoming the few. Whereas out founding fathers model of economy worked, this new "Obama model" does not!

There's really no way to compare our economy to that of our founding fathers, because our nation has grown and developed so much since then (not to mention that our economy was completely reliant on slavery at the time). And I do think that Obama's "socialist" leanings will have a somewhat positive effect on our country's economy. But I agree with you completely about the "unfortunate", and I have little sympathy and little respect (with the exception of the elderly and the disabled), for most anyone who relies on the tax money of their fellow citizens to survive. Obama is far from perfect. But he's a huge fucking step up from our last president. And honestly I wouldn't expect anything more from any politician. Especially in this country.

CrackerJax said:

Reagan was the last conservative to hold the high office.

Click to expand...

Reagan a conservative, bolderdash. He created mass government entities and raised taxes 3-4 times. He was a conservative in name only.

TylerBrooks said:

There's really no way to compare our economy to that of our founding fathers, because our nation has grown and developed so much since then (not to mention that our economy was completely reliant on slavery at the time). And I do think that Obama's "socialist" leanings will have a somewhat positive effect on our country's economy. But I agree with you completely about the "unfortunate", and I have little sympathy and little respect (with the exception of the elderly and the disabled), for most anyone who relies on the tax money of their fellow citizens to survive. Obama is far from perfect. But he's a huge fucking step up from our last president. And honestly I wouldn't expect anything more from any politician. Especially in this country.

Click to expand...

try to justify it as much as you want but a real man would admit it if he was wrong. and voting in Obama was wrong.

we all really know the truth behind the blinders we put up in our minds. when you do LSD somehow those things are revealed so cleary, it often causes panic and bad feelings depending on how many lies you have been telling yourself.

hooker doing LSD = bad trip

cuz all her faults are revealed to her nakedly, parden the pun

medicineman said:

Reagan a conservative, bolderdash. He created mass government entities and raised taxes 3-4 times. He was a conservative in name only.

Click to expand...

Mostly cause he was blackballed into it by corrupt lying democrats, and that was after he drastically reduced taxes to begin with.

lopezri said:

I believe that what's really happening here is that Obama is trying to force the country's liberal politics past their normal pendulum swing point. The U.S. has always relied on a more consistent balance of capitalism and socialism. Our country has survived on the ideal of having a greater capitalistic economy than a socialistic economy because it helps the books to balance better. We have survived because we've always tried to provide for the needy (I use needy, not "unfortunate" because fortune implies wealth and wealth has nothing to do with people who are just too damn lazy to work and would rather live off other's earnings) but not at the expense of hurting the providers. Kind of the same idea as "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few. Unfortunately (the word used properly here, not some convoluded liberal idea of "unfortunate") the "few" are now becoming the many, and the "many (the ambitious workers)" are now becoming the few. Whereas out founding fathers model of economy worked, this new "Obama model" does not!

Click to expand...

Whoops, you just ran off the track. The ambitious workers you so proudly espouse, were created by hard times, promulgated by conservative fiscal policies and greedy employers. The workers of today, are tired of always getting the shaft and are showing it in their work ethic. Pay a man/woman a liveable wage and I'll bet the ambition level rises exponentially. The bleak outlook for decent jobs has created an underclass that would rather smoke Crack/speed and deal drugs than work for minimum wage. Thankfully, I'm past that stage of life and can live on my retirement and investments. I'd really hate to be startying out in this job market, it's fucked.

medicineman said:

Whoops, you just ran off the track. The ambitious workers you so proudly espouse, were created by hard times, promulgated by conservative fiscal policies and greedy employers. The workers of today, are tired of always getting the shaft and are showing it in their work ethic. Pay a man/woman a liveable wage and I'll bet the ambition level rises exponentially. The bleak outlook for decent jobs has created an underclass that would rather smoke Crack/speed and deal drugs than work for minimum wage. Thankfully, I'm past that stage of life and can live on my retirement and investments. I'd really hate to be startying out in this job market, it's fucked.

Click to expand...

my friend you are paid for what the service is worth. if you have nothing to offer IE education you deserve nothing extra in return.

why would i pay the same for a fat hooker with no teeth than a slim hooker with a full set?





why am i all about hookers today?


medi you blame you inadequacies of earning a decent wage on everyone else but yourself, however I am afraid you are the only one to blame for your low wages.


it must be comforting for you to not have to blame yourself for your self inflicted wounds


i have a guy here at work who is from the phillipines who left his family with nothing as a young man and worked harder than i have ever seen a man work, he was so hard working he was brought over here from Saudi Arabia, noW he driveS a benzo and put all his kids through college and has a very nice house.

he was just a simple man from the phillipines with not a penny in his pocket

medicineman said:

Whoops, you just ran off the track. The ambitious workers you so proudly espouse, were created by hard times, promulgated by conservative fiscal policies and greedy employers. The workers of today, are tired of always getting the shaft and are showing it in their work ethic. Pay a man/woman a liveable wage and I'll bet the ambition level rises exponentially. The bleak outlook for decent jobs has created an underclass that would rather smoke Crack/speed and deal drugs than work for minimum wage. Thankfully, I'm past that stage of life and can live on my retirement and investments. I'd really hate to be startying out in this job market, it's fucked.

Click to expand...

Only you would post such negative bullshit.

I mean, besides the fact that the job market right now is fucked, the fact of the matter is that work in general is a lot easier now. The Socialist/Environmentalist/Unionist De-Industrialization of the United States through high taxes, absurd wages and other dumb demands has seen to that.

The increase in robotics and mechanization has seen to that.

Increased Mechanization will always eliminate the most undesirable jobs first, because they will always be overpaid relative to more desirable jobs from an employers perspective.

Who wants to risk have their arm melted working in a foundry for $12/hr or even $18/hr when they could work fastfood with out the risks for $8/hr.

Or even better, if they could get off their ass and learn a skill that pays better.

Totally absurd, the way you cry about the loss of unskilled labor when the economy is full of skilled positions that pay better. People that are too lazy to acquire skills should be left to fend for themselves instead of given free reign to leach off of those that have made the effort to acquire better paying skills.

Those that were not financially responsible in their youth should be left to their fates instead of being given free reign to steal from those that are now working.

Socialism is an ideology of unending Financial Rape where the only people that benefit are imbecilic bureaucrats while the working class, middle class and upper middle class get raped.

... Strange how that sounds a lot like the current state of the United States...

loooooooooool look what just hit the news reels!!!!




MR. PRESIDENT!

medicineman said:

Whoops, you just ran off the track. The ambitious workers you so proudly espouse, were created by hard times, promulgated by conservative fiscal policies and greedy employers. The workers of today, are tired of always getting the shaft and are showing it in their work ethic. Pay a man/woman a liveable wage and I'll bet the ambition level rises exponentially. The bleak outlook for decent jobs has created an underclass that would rather smoke Crack/speed and deal drugs than work for minimum wage. Thankfully, I'm past that stage of life and can live on my retirement and investments. I'd really hate to be startying out in this job market, it's fucked.

Click to expand...

I understand why workers would feel they are getting the "shaft" as you say, but what kind of effort are they putting into the company to show that they are interested in the continued success of the business so that they may continue to keep their job and continue to collect an income? Have you seen the people out there who are working for minimum wage these days? A bunch of them can't even do the job they should be doing because they can't even speak the language and then they just get frustrated with the customers and blame the misunderstanding on the customer and make fun of them.

Generally, small business owners, will notice if their employees are putting forth a concerted effort to keep the business moving forward. Those who are just there to collect a paycheck are the ones getting the "shaft".

I think the real question should be is, who's not sick of Obama, yet?

Only the ones gaining by it (non tax payers) and those too stubborn to admit their mistakes.

This guy's sick sick of Obama. But he likes him 'as a person'

http://www.norwalkreflector.com/articles/2009/07/02/front/doc4a4a3e4ec116d680840698.txt

Is this any of you guys on here?