When will Barry stop ........

[john_galt]

Let me try to answer a few of the things I've read here;
Clinton revived his legend when the GOP took over the Congress in one election (it has been done before). Where Clinton dissembled about balancing the budget the new GOP majority made it happen along with welfare reform in 1996.
The GOP never made Romney's religion an issue why should anyone else except for the democrats and the media.
Sarah Palin? Despite the fact that she was gang banged by the media she is more popular than ever in this country. How do you figure that?
Huckabee? He has spent too much time trying to impress the Hollywood crowd with how reasonble he is and some non-religious conservatives think he is too religious.
There are plenty more but don't wait for the media to tell you about them. Michelle Bachman, Mike Pence, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, and Hailey Barbour to name a few.
As for the differences between the GOP and the Democrats; it is now about conservatives and progressives. There is a huge difference twixt the two. Progressives are the next worst thing to marxist-socialists. Read the history of the progressive moment. This isn't Glenn Beck redux. I wrote my first paper on progressives and eugenics about four years ago. Beck is now finding this stuff out. Progressives do believe that they can run you life better than you. They have believed in science and think science can make better people whether they want to or not.

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by john_galt

Progressives do believe that they can run you life better than you.

I think this is the part where I mock you by chanting "Yes we can!"
LOL

[john_galt]

For all your flippant remarks I really don't understand why you find a loss of freedom so funny. Can you explain that Longermonger and you can't say that it is not happening since you were complaining about it under Bush. How about it? A good rational explanation.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

...you obviously didn't read the article which mentioned that the Bamster was the first Democratic presidential candidate in 30 years that obtained a true majority of the presidential vote, primarily due to the "angry white man" demographic voting for the Bamster in larger numbers, and that support in this voting bloc now showing its disapproval in numbers that rival the upheval in 1994.

Actually fritz, I did read the article. Explain to me how the poll means that Obama loses in 2012? You said the numbers were lower than 1994, when the Republican revolution (???) took place. Clinton still won with almost 50% of the votes in 1996. So what I am getting at with my hill of beans remark is that OBVIOUSLY, a poll generated more than 2 1/2 years prior to the next presidential election doesn't mean much.

[kcbigpapa]

JG, what freedoms have been lost under Obama? How about under Bush?

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Actually fritz, I did read the article. Explain to me how the poll means that Obama loses in 2012? You said the numbers were lower than 1994, when the Republican revolution (???) took place. Clinton still won with almost 50% of the votes in 1996. So what I am getting at with my hill of beans remark is that OBVIOUSLY, a poll generated more than 2 1/2 years prior to the next presidential election doesn't mean much.

Which is why I said 10 months is a long time in politics, much less 2 years, 10 months.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

JG, what freedoms have been lost under Obama? How about under Bush?

Obama - freedom to decide whether or not you want to have health insurance or not, for one. If I am 22 years old, otherwise healthy, living on my own - I may choose not to have health insurance, because the odds of me needing it are extremely small. Now, under the Bamster, I have to buy it or be fined and, if I refuse to pay the fine, be put in jail. How's that for a freedom being lost.

Bush - I don't know of any freedoms being lost under 43. Some may argue that your right to privacy was lost because of the Patriot Act; however, there is no right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution - it was made up by when Roe v Wade was adjudicated in the Supreme Court in 1972.

[Guest052813-01]

Let's call a spade a spade, OK. There are conservatives and there are liberals. Progressives are liberals who are now progressives again. The names change because when people find out what their agenda is and the agenda becomes unpopular, the progressive/liberal needs to package the ideas under a new moniker. AFAIK, conservatives have always been conservative.

There is a famous quote, most often attributed (mistakenly) to Winston Churchill that says, "If you are not a liberal when you are 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are 40, you have no brain." While the source of the quote may be questionable, the meaning behind the quote is spot-on.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

Which is why I said 10 months is a long time in politics, much less 2 years, 10 months.

You said this after the fact. Don't make it try to seem that you said this before I called out the fact that Clinton still won a second term meaning your article and its poll was essentially worthless.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

Obama - freedom to decide whether or not you want to have health insurance or not, for one. If I am 22 years old, otherwise healthy, living on my own - I may choose not to have health insurance, because the odds of me needing it are extremely small. Now, under the Bamster, I have to buy it or be fined and, if I refuse to pay the fine, be put in jail. How's that for a freedom being lost.

Bush - I don't know of any freedoms being lost under 43. Some may argue that your right to privacy was lost because of the Patriot Act; however, there is no right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution - it was made up by when Roe v Wade was adjudicated in the Supreme Court in 1972.

So the right to not have health insurance is a freedom? Is this from the Constitution? I'm a little confused so please explain this to me. Has the Supreme Court ever recognized any rights of privacy linked to the Constitution?

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

Let's call a spade a spade, OK. There are conservatives and there are liberals. Progressives are liberals who are now progressives again. The names change because when people find out what their agenda is and the agenda becomes unpopular, the progressive/liberal needs to package the ideas under a new moniker. AFAIK, conservatives have always been conservative.

There is a famous quote, most often attributed (mistakenly) to Winston Churchill that says, "If you are not a liberal when you are 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are 40, you have no brain." While the source of the quote may be questionable, the meaning behind the quote is spot-on.

Fritz, I like the clever, clever way that you are calling me stupid by using a quote to do your dirty work.

[MsElena]

Nice quote. Did you get my sarcasm there or do I need to spell it out for the no brainers?

Again, another reason not to discuss politics with people. I may be a liberal, but I would never call someone's beliefs or political affiliation stupid. Even if it was done in a backhanded manner.

Have a wonderful day all you brainiacs.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

So the right to not have health insurance is a freedom? Is this from the Constitution? I'm a little confused so please explain this to me. Has the Supreme Court ever recognized any rights of privacy linked to the Constitution?

Yes, the right not to purchase health insurance is a freedom - freedom of choice - or are you not pro-choice? The Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, stated that there was an implied right to privacy within the Constitution, which allowed the Court to rule in favor of the plaintiff and made a woman's right to choose a matter of privacy covered by the Constitution. While I disagree with the Court's interpretation, it is a matter of judicial precedence and, until overturned by federal statue, state statute, Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court ruling, freedom of choice and privacy is considered the law of the land.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Fritz, I like the clever, clever way that you are calling me stupid by using a quote to do your dirty work.

Infer what you like. From how I interpret it, the quote refers to all who let their feelings command their decisions (the heart) at a young age; and then, as you gain life experience, logic and reason take over (the brain) to temper those emotions and feelings.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by MsElena

Nice quote. Did you get my sarcasm there or do I need to spell it out for the no brainers?

Again, another reason not to discuss politics with people. I may be a liberal, but I would never call someone's beliefs or political affiliation stupid. Even if it was done in a backhanded manner.

Have a wonderful day all you brainiacs.

So, if I may interpret your statement, you would not call someone who follows the political affiliation of the National Socialist party, Ku Klux Klan or Communist party stupid? Or anyone whose beliefs include polygamy, the exploitation of women as second-class citizens or the elimination of anyone or any country whose religion is not theirs stupid?