Proud to be an American?

[B-Man]

I already said that it appears the majority of posters on here are capable of looking at both sides of issues. I myself watch Fox News (until I start yelling at the TV) and watched the first two Republican debates in their entirety. I live for playing devil's advocate in these type of discussions.

 

 

My point is that if you only watched Fox News and the Republican debates, you would think that this country is far worse off than it really is. Is that even debatable? I guess I can't really waste my time debating with someone who believes that the portrait that Sean Hannity paints of this country is an accurate one.

 

 

The motor industry, the economy in general (it's not perfect but if it was where it's at under Mitt Romney, you really think Sean Hannity would be nitpicking a few economic indicators??), Bin Laden, the health care act (not perfect either but something needed to be done and it was a good first step in the right direction), a restoration of professionalism and complete sentences to the position...

 

 

 

You see the inconsistency in your posts.

 

Everything that GOP and Fox does is one-sided according to you,

 

and you follow that up a childish (typically liberal) take on President Bush.

 

 

Hardly Devil's advocate type of statements.

 

 

 

your fixation on Fox News................is a giveaway.

 

 

and no, I don't watch them or Hanitty................but assume away, that's what you seem to be best at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 5, 2015 by B-Man

[metzelaars_lives]

 

The problem, again, is that you're allowing the preconceived SoProg mentality to rule your thinking.

 

Let's start small: would you agree, generally, that one of the problems with this country's economy is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

Of course I would. It's the number one issue with this country's economy. Not something the Republicans seemed to care about- EVER- until they decided it was one way to criticize the direction of the current economy. The fact of he matter is that the economy under Obama has been terrific for the top 1% AKA the Republicans' financial base. But God forbid a guy like Bernie Sanders try and address it- he is lambasted as a dreamer (which he probably is) and some sort of Communist. So what's the solution when the one guy who really wants to do something about it is mocked by the very people who insist that it's a problem. You don't really believe in trickle down economics do you?

[GG]

The motor industry, the economy in general (it's not perfect but if it was where it's at under Mitt Romney, you really think Sean Hannity would be nitpicking a few economic indicators and instead pointing out the good ones??), Bin Laden, the health care act (not perfect either but something needed to be done and it was a good first step in the right direction), a restoration of professionalism and complete sentences to the position...

 

Yikes. I think you left out the obvious, he's not George Bush.

[metzelaars_lives]

 

 

 

 

 

You see the inconsistency in your posts.

 

Everything that GOP and Fox does is one-sided according to you,

 

and you follow that up a childish (typically liberal) take on President Bush.

 

 

Hardly Devil's advocate type of statements.

 

 

 

your fixation on Fox News................is a giveaway.

 

 

and no, I don't watch them or Hanitty................but assume away, that's what you seem to be best at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

I don't understand what's inconsistent about anything I posted. I do like to play devil's advocate with liberals all the time. I do watch Fox News to understand where the other side is coming from and there are certain things (I'd be happy to tell you what) that I agree with them on. And yes, George Bush was not an articulate speaker and was kind of an embarrassing figurehead. Call it childish of me to point out, I'm OK with that.

[keepthefaith]

Enough.

 

Do you think that the general viewpoint held by most educated English, French and Germans is that the Clinton and Obama administrations were abominations but that the Bush administration was just the tops? Forget about what you think- let's say or the sake of argument, that's the case. Do you really think, as the poster intimated, that that is what most Europeans think?

I already said that it appears the majority of posters on here are capable of looking at both sides of issues. I myself watch Fox News (until I start yelling at the TV) and watched the first two Republican debates in their entirety. I live for playing devil's advocate in these type of discussions. While most candidates are quick to jump on the Iraq War (or at least the ones who didn't vote on it because they weren't in politics at the time), I think it's fair to say that their much bigger gripe is with the Obama administration. And no, I don't think that just because Obama was elected twice that that is necessarily an endorsement of the job he has done. Nor is an increase in Republican House/Senate seats an endorsement of the job they have done. Republicans win elections when voter turnout is low, period. My point is that if you only watched Fox News and the Republican debates, you would think that this country is far worse off than it really is. Is that even debatable? I guess I can't really waste my time debating with someone who believes that the portrait that Sean Hannity paints of this country is an accurate one.

So Republicans are obviously more devoted voters since they show up in greater numbers for mid-term and smaller elections. That to me is a compliment.

 

My beliefs are usually numbers based so when Fox runs stories on debt, spending, workforce participation, illegal immigrant issues, healthcare and other hot topics - they are quite often backed up by the math. Real numbers. Real numbers from sources other than Fox also. Real numbers from real life experience in my case. Real numbers that are ignored by many liberal politicians. Quite frankly, Fox can win most of their arguments and they run stories that most other networks ignore or very minimally report.

 

The liberal arguments of today are only for the uninformed, small minded or those who have somewhat perverted priorities.

 

Republican governors outnumber dems 2 to 1 now. R's have the house and senate and soon the white house. Take that to the bank. Again, take that to the bank. In spite of the horrendous liberal bias of the MSM, the real story is how the country is now moving away from liberal bull **** and it is utter !@#$ing bull **** because the math does not lie.

[metzelaars_lives]

So Republicans are obviously more devoted voters since they show up in greater numbers for mid-term and smaller elections. That to me is a compliment.

 

My beliefs are usually numbers based so when Fox runs stories on debt, spending, workforce participation, illegal immigrant issues, healthcare and other hot topics - they are quite often backed up by the math. Real numbers. Real numbers from sources other than Fox also. Real numbers from real life experience in my case. Real numbers that are ignored by many liberal politicians. Quite frankly, Fox can win most of their arguments and they run stories that most other networks ignore or very minimally report.

 

The liberal arguments of today are only for the uninformed, small minded or those who have somewhat perverted priorities.

 

Republican governors outnumber dems 2 to 1 now. R's have the house and senate and soon the white house. Take that to the bank. Again, take that to the bank. In spite of the horrendous liberal bias of the MSM, the real story is how the country is now moving away from liberal bull **** and it is utter !@#$ing bull **** because the math does not lie.

You got it!

[keepthefaith]

Of course I would. It's the number one issue with this country's economy. Not something the Republicans seemed to care about- EVER- until they decided it was one way to criticize the direction of the current economy. The fact of he matter is that the economy under Obama has been terrific for the top 1% AKA the Republicans' financial base. But God forbid a guy like Bernie Sanders try and address it- he is lambasted as a dreamer (which he probably is) and some sort of Communist. So what's the solution when the one guy who really wants to do something about it is mocked by the very people who insist that it's a problem. You don't really believe in trickle down economics do you?

Rubbish. Obama's policies have only been good for the 1% because a soft economy always punishes less capable workers. That won't change. Obama is too stupid or stubborn to understand that growing GDP grows wages and tax receipts. He's not willing to adopt growth policies unless they are government growth that benefits his party's voters. Raising taxes is not a growth policy. Forcing employers to buy more expensive health insurance is not a growth policy. 1-time deficit spending is a not a growth policy.

 

Republicans never cared about the economy? Reagan?

[Azalin]

Enough.

 

Do you think that the general viewpoint held by most educated English, French and Germans is that the Clinton and Obama administrations were abominations but that the Bush administration was just the tops? Forget about what you think- let's say or the sake of argument, that's the case. Do you really think, as the poster intimated, that that is what most Europeans think?

 

I'm not saying anything about what most - or any for that matter - Europeans think. In fact, I was only asking because you condescended to Keukasmallies about not quoting what that one guy who he met in Belgium thinks, and then presume to speak for a plurality of Europeans regarding their dispositions toward Bush/Obama. Unless you've held conversations with various Europeans on the subject, then you may want to walk back your criticisms of perceived bias in others.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The motor industry, the economy in general (it's not perfect but if it was where it's at under Mitt Romney, you really think Sean Hannity would be nitpicking a few economic indicators and instead pointing out the good ones??), Bin Laden, the health care act (not perfect either but something needed to be done and it was a good first step in the right direction), a restoration of professionalism and complete sentences to the position...

The motor industry was not an achievement. The businesses should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy, the valuable parts retained or sold off, the debt liquidated, and the broken business models that led them to where the sat disappearing through the restructuring of the companies involved. Worse yet, in the follow up, bond holders were harmed.

 

The economy in general is not an achievement. The DOW is in indicative of how large corporations are doing, not how individuals are doing. More people than ever are on government assistance, and labor participation is at a 37 year low. Economic growth usually booms out of a market bottom, but this recovery has been lethargic, as this administration has caused uncertainty in the economic engine of the country, and staged an all-out war against the financial industry. That's not cherry picking data, that is the pertinent data.

 

What about Bin Laden was a major achievement? Or for that matter, our foreign policy in general?

 

The ACA was not a major achievement. It didn't insure the people it said it would insure. It destroyed the entire health care market place, and it driving insurers out of business. It turned doctors into bureaucrats rather than health care providers. It chased, and continues to chase, good doctors out of the industry leading to shortages. Nearly all of the health care exchanges it created have failed and no longer exist. Health care has become more expensive.

 

This administration has not, in any way, been professional. The IRS and Department of Justice have been turned into political weapons. Domestic policy has been turned over, whole sale, to the race baiters. Iran is identified as a fiend, while conservatives have been defined as an enemy, leading to a break down in constructive dialogue, and the greatest cultural divide we've had in this country since the civil war.

Edited November 6, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

This is why I can't really dig PPP. It seems as if most people are fairly reasonable/examine both sides of issues but there's just too many of these brainwashed/clearly get every bit of their news from you know where types on here. So you are ashamed of the current administration and the Clinton administration but you make no mention of the administration in between? I mean, come on man. You don't need to apologize to anyone. If you go to any other modernized, westernized country in the world, an overwhelming majority (no, not everyone- please don't give an example of one guy you met in Belgium) of people were blown away by the fact that Bush got elected twice and are generally cool with the job Obama has done- by and large, that is. I mean, there isn't another such country on planet Earth that isn't to the left of us! But if you insist on living in your little fantasy bubble of yours, then yes, if you watch the Republican debates, you would think that everything was just fine and dandy until 2008 at which point this country went to s**t. It's such an incredible stretch to believe this, I can't believe that Republicans continue to get away with this narrative. But alas, their base has proven time and again to be so unbelievably gullible that it works. Wouldn't you question a news source that continually tells you that every last thing Obama has ever done is bad? I mean, you would think that once in seven years they might say, "hey not really an Obama guy but I'll give him credit for this one thing he did..." But instead, they do things like cherry pick a few economic indicators that are down and never once mention that the Dow has doubled.

Because citizens of other countries think Obama is OK means nothing to me. I'm fact when citizens of countries who are losing their national and cultural identity and drifting towards socialism think Obama is OK that is a huge red flag to me that really illustrates what is wrong. I don't want to be like Europe. Europe is its own deal they can do what works for them. This is America and we are exceptional and I want to be great. Europe should be more like us, not us like them.

[Tiberius]

 

And this makes you ashamed to be an American?

 

I'm very unhappy how my tax dollars are spent but I will never be ashamed to be an American. I know never say never. We'll see.

Says the guy who wants to leave the country...

[Chef Jim]

Says the guy who wants to leave the country...

 

I am not ashamed to BE an American. I have no choice. An I pissed off in the direction it's headed and are there much better places in the world to retire? Hell yeah!!

[Tiberius]

 

I am not ashamed to BE an American. I have no choice. An I pissed off in the direction it's headed and are there much better places in the world to retire? Hell yeah!!

Good thing English isn't the official language!

 

What direction is that, anyway?

[Chef Jim]

Good thing English isn't the official language!

 

What direction is that, anyway?

 

 

More people than ever on the government dole. Too easy for people to have a relatively comfortable life with never having to work and people such as you thinking that we can and need to give more. The country is becoming more and more segregated and that is coming from our leaders from both parties. Less and less are we rewarding hard work and initiative which is what has made this country great and we spend more and more time coddling the lazy.

[boyst]

this thread is funny. thanks for the laugh, aholes.

[OCinBuffalo]

I always love the R turnout in off-years nonsense.

 

Does it say anything at all, that the Rs ALWAYS turn out? How many more times are we going to hear the turnout excuse in an off year/special election? Does anybody remember the last time a D won a contested off year/special election? So, "turnout" is also: consistent. How can something than is consistent, every election...also be used as an "outlier" or "abberation" excuse by the Ds?

 

Since we are demanding facts here?

 

Here's a set of them:

1. If the 2014 electorate showed up in 2012? Obama loses.

2. But, the demographic makeup of the 2014 electorate on average only benefitted each R by 1%.

3. That's right, for every D that lost by more than 1%, turnout was not the sole issue.

4. Every single poll, and special election since, show that the Ds have massively, and consistently over-estimated the electorate's support for their positions and values.

5. The KY governor just won, largely based his campaign on social, not economic, policy change/push back, and destroyed the D candidate. At one point the RGA pulled its funding from the race, because the R was supposedly a shaky candidate/social conservative, but, they came back and in the end, the guy won by double digits.

 

Thus, turnout had nothing to do with why the Ds lost a historical number of elections in 2014, and has nothing to do with why they keep getting beaten, consistently. The math that KeeptheFaith requires?

 

Undeniable.

 

The simple fact is, the "demographics inevitablility" argument is categorically wrong. Hispanics and Asians do not share the voting record of blacks, and it looks now like the never will. AND, blacks have little interest in supporting issues like gay marriage or climate change.

 

When you base your platform/election on policies that are disliked and/or less than half of your voters care about?

 

You're going to lose. Turnout or no turnout.

Edited November 7, 2015 by OCinBuffalo