Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

As probably the cleanest recent national referendum on preference of conservative vs liberal leadership...the presidential election saw the majority of these 'socialist' states vote for conservatism. Whether obvious or not, this is quite relevant.

First of all, laugh out loud at John McCain being an example of "conservative leadership". Second question, why don't the recent midterm elections count as a "clean recent national referendum on preference of leadership"?

Anyways, maybe I don't see what you're getting at, but you seem to be missing the point. The President plays a different role than Senators and Governors do.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Obama wants federal pay freeze

RFAlph or another fed in the know...I'm a GS-9 "intern" in line to be put in an official position at GS-11 at the end of May 2011. Would this stop me from going to GS-11?

No. He froze the pay raise. Promotions, step increases (3% for the uninitiated), and performance/cash awards are still good.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

As probably the cleanest recent national referendum on preference of conservative vs liberal leadership...the presidential election saw the majority of these 'socialist' states vote for conservatism. Whether obvious or not, this is quite relevant.

The "cleanest"... most of that election was "anybody but bush", "our first black president", and the glitter of shiny language... and now that the luster of language has vanished he's hovering around 40% approval. Still, its interesting, you hold 2008 to be the true light then what was the 2010 election? March of the ignorant?

edit: they voted for a person who the believed was a lot more "pragmatic" and "intelligent" than has been borne out by observation... they voted for presumed competence... a quality they thought Bush lacked. Its funny now that liberal voices are suggesting that Obama needs a helper-executive to run the presidency. You want to know why they suggest it, because they know he's an imbecile and its been more than one liberal voice who has commented to this effect... not so much that he's an imbecile but even the "great smart Obama can't manage it", "he needs help"... when faced with two possibilities I take the obvious, the president (as a position) is supposed to be a generalist who is supposed to select the managers to do the little things 'cause there's always too many little things... so in light of that any president can't get into the details on every action... so either he needs help in being a generalist or he's an idiot... no, he's an idiot and other national liberals are aware of it. He may need help, but the position doesn't require it.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

hat was the 2010 election? March of the ignorant?

I'm sorry, did you not notice the "tea party?"

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

First of all, laugh out loud at John McCain being an example of "conservative leadership". Second question, why don't the recent midterm elections count as a "clean recent national referendum on preference of leadership"?

Very simple. Because congressional candidates from different states do not stand for the same principles...believe it or not elections of Ted Kennedy and Zell Miller over the last decade do not mean that Mass politics are the same as Georgia just because they're both Dems. Yes, Obama was the liberal candidate and McCain was the conservative candidate...and both Obama and McCain are the same in every state and are therefore are a good barometer of a state's overall position on the political spectrum. This discussion is really over.

In the end, it appears you've already agreed with the point...the list of 'socialist' states is heavy with typically red states...having conservatives who have given alot of lipservice, but it appears not much action, towards small government.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

March of the ignorant?

No, that's every election in history. The "ignorant" just change depending on who lost, is cranky about it and is looking to excuse it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

they voted for a person who the believed was a lot more "pragmatic" and "intelligent" than has been borne out by observation.

They did vote for pragmatism and intelligence, but they got both. The two mistakes Obama has made were having a financial team dominated by the groupthink that created the crisis, and the self-defeating 2-year ban on lobbyists taking administration positions that deprived him of so much institutional knowledge. Reagan made the second mistake to some extent -- though he was very well connected at the policy center level -- but he didn't make the first so no matter how bad things got during his first couple years he was never implicated in the recession -- his team were outsiders trying to fix the problems, not insiders trying to extricate themselves while refusing the admit responsibility.

The only one of the brain trust that created the recession who has been honest was Greenspan, who admitted efficient market economic theory goes on the trashpile of history. Obama's team is still compromised by being the useful idiots of that theory and they are too tainted to ever go back.

Obama's main character problem has been a failure of nerve. It was obvious the first day the GOP was not dealing in good faith; he should have simply ignored them. It was obvious from the onset of the economic crisis that Wall Street was the problem, not the solution; he should have built a team with fresh ideas and no allegiance to the dinosaur financial institutions. He was too cautious to do either, so now we're muddling through.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

In the end, it appears you've already agreed with the point...the list of 'socialist' states is heavy with typically red states...having conservatives who have given alot of lipservice, but it appears not much action, towards small government.

That's the point I'm making. Red states != conservative states, they equal Republican states, as has been proven time and time again, there is a big difference. Look at Alaska as a prominent example. Or West Virginia, who despite being red for Presidential elections, continued to send America's favorite Kleagle, pork lord Robert Byrd back to the Senate every 6 years,


Also, your definition of socialism is idiotic. Have a safe commute.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

As probably the cleanest recent national referendum on preference of conservative vs liberal leadership...the presidential election saw the majority of these 'socialist' states vote for conservatism. Whether obvious or not, this is quite relevant.

The public isn't that sophisticated in how they vote. In general, they're happy as long as they are doing well financially and if things aren't too messy overseas, in that order. Making any sort of sweeping conclusion from one election or another on socialism or conservatism or whatever is a gross simplification at best.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Sadly, there probably are a number of people who want illegals to vote who are against the ID requirement, at least in AZ.

However, it's also been roundly unpopular in some quarters in parts of the country (e.g. Indiana) where there is not a substantial illegal immigrant presence. There are some legitimate concerns about ID requirements tending to disenfranchise a portion of the poor/elderly voting bloc, which also coincidentally (or not so coincidentally) tends to vote heavily Democrat.

I'm not necessarily against stronger ID requirements as a strike against one form of election fraud, but I'd like to see it offset by measures against electronic election fraud. The things that are possible and undetectable for only one person (or a small group) with the right access to pull off in most of the all-electronic systems are truly frightening.

I agree on the all-electronic systems. I'm glad my state doesn't use them, and I can't understand why anyone would.

On the ID stuff, there certainly are reasonable concerns about not disenfranchising anyone through ID requirements, but, really, if someone can't get themselves together enough to have a legit ID with them when they go to vote, it's their fault, and not the voting system or government's. But, if an ID system is abused in any way, I say have at 'em with the full weight of the law. Our voting system needs to be protected both from voting fraud via a reasonable ID system and any sort of effort to inhibit voting by anyone.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The public isn't that sophisticated in how they vote. In general, they're happy as long as they are doing well financially and if things aren't too messy overseas, in that order. Making any sort of sweeping conclusion from one election or another on socialism or conservatism or whatever is a gross simplification at best.

Winner.

 

[AspyDad]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Its funny now that liberal voices are suggesting that Obama needs a helper-executive to run the presidency. You want to know why they suggest it, because they know he's an imbecile and its been more than one liberal voice who has commented to this effect... not so much that he's an imbecile but even the "great smart Obama can't manage it", "he needs help"... when faced with two possibilities I take the obvious, the president (as a position) is supposed to be a generalist who is supposed to select the managers to do the little things 'cause there's always too many little things... so in light of that any president can't get into the details on every action... so either he needs help in being a generalist or he's an idiot... no, he's an idiot and other national liberals are aware of it. He may need help, but the position doesn't require it.

I really never thought that Obama was running things. I agree with Beck that Soros and his ilk are running the show. Special interest run both parties but the same people that complained that W. was just a figure head can't see that Obama is the same thing.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

West Virginia has two Democratic Senators, and a Democratic governor.
Alaska loves their pork, reference the Senate election for details.
Alabama's pretty red, but they've had Democratic governors recently.
Vermont has an actual Socialist as a Senator, along with a Democratic senator and a Democratic governor.
New Mexico has 2 Democratic Senators and until January will have a Democratic governor.

I think that's a lot more indicative than who they voted for for President.

Edit: To clarify, I sort of agree with you that it's rather hypocritical. However, who do you think is more influential in bringing home the bacon to a specific state, a President (who runs the entire country) or a Senator or Governor (who have the interests of their state first)?

It's so cute to watch you conservatives defend this stuff. How about this. Since States are truly the incubators for ideas before they go to the federal government, how about all the RED STATES put their money where there mouth is and stop accepting federal money?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The public isn't that sophisticated in how they vote. In general, they're happy as long as they are doing well financially and if things aren't too messy overseas, in that order. Making any sort of sweeping conclusion from one election or another on socialism or conservatism or whatever is a gross simplification at best.

To paraphrase:

The American does not give a **** who runs things, as long as he has a bottle of Vodka to suck and some domestic animal life to ****, then he will happily sit in **** his whole life.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Here.

Here.

Here.

Each has citations to dozens of studies.

The government's own study shows that Head Start has no long term positive effect.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

They did vote for pragmatism and intelligence, but they got both. The two mistakes Obama has made were having a financial team dominated by the groupthink that created the crisis, and the self-defeating 2-year ban on lobbyists taking administration positions that deprived him of so much institutional knowledge. Reagan made the second mistake to some extent -- though he was very well connected at the policy center level -- but he didn't make the first so no matter how bad things got during his first couple years he was never implicated in the recession -- his team were outsiders trying to fix the problems, not insiders trying to extricate themselves while refusing the admit responsibility.

I'd add into that the fact that only 7% of his inner group have any private sector experience yet they are trying to fix/grow the private sector.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The government's own study shows that Head Start has no long term positive effect.

Pretty slanted view of the report although somewhat accurate. Read the report directly.

The problem is the two things that affect kids the most (genetics, and parenting) can't be fixed. That's why No Child Left Behind is such a joke, and testing students and evaluating teachers based on that is such a joke. The teacher cannot do anything about those two things and niether can the government.

But, then the question becomes what do you do? Maybe like the voting suggestion below we should just go to private education for those that can afford it. We can kick all the illegals out and start using our own labor for picking beans and washing linens at hotels.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I'd add into that the fact that only 7% of his inner group have any private sector experience yet they are trying to fix/grow the private sector.

That sounds amazingly like a talking point. Is that from Rush or Hannity?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

It's so cute to watch you conservatives defend this stuff. How about this. Since States are truly the incubators for ideas before they go to the federal government, how about all the RED STATES put their money where there mouth is and stop accepting federal money?

Not as cute as you trying to make a direct correlation between federal spending in states and whether they are conservative, ignoring the plethora of other factors.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The public isn't that sophisticated in how they vote. In general, they're happy as long as they are doing well financially and if things aren't too messy overseas, in that order. Making any sort of sweeping conclusion from one election or another on socialism or conservatism or whatever is a gross simplification at best.

Precisely. If people feel content about their own situation, they tend to keep the usual pack of bums around. If not, they bring in another pack of bums.