WSJ : Peggy Noonan: Obama Cannot Win The Coming Election

reply to post by getreadyalready



Name a "real conservative" president in the last 30 years -

Conservative is nothing more than a slogan

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Name a "real conservative" president in the last 30 years -

Conservative is nothing more than a slogan

It's more than a slogan, it is a real lifestyle, and it is a fairly common lifestyle among the blue-collar class, and in the rural areas, and in the Midwest and South, etc. The problem is the Religious factions have hijacked the Conservative Mantra and tried to make them enjoined so you can't be one without the other.

In practice, there are plenty of people that are not overly religious, and still live and breath conservative values, that also happen to be classic liberal values, and libertarian values as the other poster pointed out.

What we really need is someone that can unite the Blue Dog Democrats, the Tea Party, the Libertarians, and the Classic Liberals into one United Party AGAINST big and intrusive government!

And, you are correct, we have not had a Conservative President in my lifetime. Reagan was the closest, but then they shot him and his views came around to what the controllers wanted. TPTB, and the Bankers, and the Lobbyists, and Wall Street will not allow a Conservative to be elected. They'll allow a Republican like Romney or Santorum, but they will never allow someone like Ron Paul.

Originally posted by milominderbinder


I have a better idea....let's just remove those words from our entire political vocabulary. The WHOLE POINT of centering political rhetoric upon ideology is so that those clowns can divide us all up into little, tiny, demographic tidbits and watch us argue with one another whether or not the colloquial vernacular connotations of such terms ought to supersede those of Webster's Dictionary when taken in context.

If we stop looking for political, economic, and religious "Truth" (with capital "T") and instead simply focus upon statements and facts which are either "true" or "not true" (with a lower case "t") we will be much further ahead in both the long and the short run.

No, words mean things. Language is the mode in which we communicate. If the words mean nothing we might as well sit around and grunt.

You will never unite this country and it has nothing to do with TPTB. There are real differences between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals don't even have representation, so I don't know what half crying in this thread is about. Of course most of you would rather see Liberals rode out on a rail out of the country (even if you won't admit it).

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Instead of focusing on unemployment, declining home values and foreclosures,

Obama played 9,000 rounds of golf and gave us Obamacare ( DOOMED) ,

Dodd-Frank FinReg and Solyndra.

Peggy Noonan says Obama has been transformed into a Not - So - Smooth Operator.

- WSJ: Peggy Noonan -

peggy noonan?...a millionaire not wanting FinReg or Obamas healthcare...i'm shocked!!, i tell you, just shocked!!

ObamaCare really does not affect the "millionaires" ....

they already pay for their insurance.

Only the small people will now pay more.
(assuming the "Mandate" is found constitutional)



FinReg for the most part is targeting the bank corporations.

Not "millionaires" (I think)



(from the OP article)

Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?

And how about the "severability clause" ? He must have "overlooked" that too !
He is "Obama the Brillianteen"

Originally posted by antonia

No, words mean things. Language is the mode in which we communicate. If the words mean nothing we might as well sit around and grunt.

You will never unite this country and it has nothing to do with TPTB. There are real differences between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals don't even have representation, so I don't know what half crying in this thread is about. Of course most of you would rather see Liberals rode out on a rail out of the country (even if you won't admit it).

Yes...most certainly words DO have meanings. However, like many words there are both colloquial and literal definitions of the words "Conservative" and "Liberal". My point is NOT that these words don't have "meanings", it's that the "meanings" have been fu*&%ed up beyond any and all recognition.

Case in point, you identify yourself as a "Liberal" and note that the Libertarian party is both founded upon and in part takes it's name from the root words of "liberty" and "liberal". You are 100% correct.

Likewise, getreadyalready has declared himself a Conservative, but has shown a clear and unequivocal support of the Libertarian ideals of "small" or "non-intrusive" government. To getreadyalready the word "Conservative" has more to do with adherence to the Constitutional powers of government, civil rights, and the separation of church and state...or at the very least the separation of religious zealotry and politics. (I'm just summarizing...I don't want to speak for him). He is also 100% correct. According to Webster's Dictionary, there can LITERALLY be nothing more "Conservative" than sticking to as strict an interpretation of the Constitution as humanly possible, given that the word "Conservative" means"resistant to change".

Thus, while you are busy making sure that people know you identify yourself as a "Liberal" and that you feel that true "Liberals" don't have a real voice in the government, you run the risk of NOT seeing just how "Conservative" many of your own views might really be. After all...the idea that the government ought to stay out the bedroom and not at all be concerned about how it's citizens choose to use their genitalia is inherently "CONSERVATIVE"!!

Even though the whole "Founding Father's" routine is used ad nauseum these days, I will venture to say that the idea that the American public has been choosing it's leaders based upon a perpetual political fetish surrounding who's doing what with their reproductive parts would make the bulk of them ROLL OVER IN THEIR GRAVES.

So...how does this happen? Easy. It's how the words have been BRANDED in colloquial usage which alters our perception of what those words ACTUALLY mean...and it goes BOTH WAYS. If you want to have some fun sometime, go ask a pair of "Conservatives" if they believe in "small" government. Then ask them if returning control of Federal issues to the States or even local municipalities is a "good step" towards "small government". After you get your pair of "yes" answers to these questions look at them and say:
"Wait a second...wouldn't returning control to the local level actually result in "BIGGER" government?" Imagine if all 3,033 counties had their own version of an EPA...wouldn't it be an inconsistent bureaucratic nightmare? How could a residential home builder afford all of the legal advice to keep current on four or five counties competing environmental policies...much less insure himself in each county under a separate policy?"

Sometimes "small" government can really do little else other than be responsible for a HELL OF A LOT of duplicated effort and MORE governmental employees instead of less. What most proponents of "small" government ACTUALLY are in favor of is a non-intrusive government which respects personal liberties and a STRONGER VOICE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL in government.

What's amusing to me is that I have found that a whole lot of "Liberals" and "Conservatives" ACTUALLY agree on more things than they disagree on once the rhetoric, colloquial vernacular, and media brainwashing is stripped away.

Likewise...sit back and watch the show as those two aforementioned "Conservatives" start arguing with one another because "small government' to one person means "less government" and to another it means "more direct government".

ALL of these words in the archaic LEFT/RIGHT paradigm have been hijacked and distorted so as to carry SO MANY DIFFERENT MEANINGS that they have ACTUALLY become essentially meaningless.

Worst of all...people who agree on key issues spend all their time bickering with one another over whether it's better to be a "Conservative" or a "Liberal" and never realize that they agree on 80%+ of the issues at hand.

Divided...we fall.

reply to post by milominderbinder

Thus, while you are busy making sure that people know you identify yourself as a "Liberal" and that you feel that true "Liberals" don't have a real voice in the government, you run the risk of NOT seeing just how "Conservative" many of your own views might really be. After all...the idea that the government ought to stay out the bedroom and not at all be concerned about how it's citizens choose to use their genitalia is inherently "CONSERVATIVE"!!

Really? Considering that most of the Conservatives in this country push Anti-gay laws I don't think so. Your EPA example doesn't work, most modern Conservatives would just say abolish the EPA entirely and don't even bother with a local solution. How are Liberals who don't want their water and air trashed going to accept that? They won't and you know that. But as I said, there is no liberal representation in the U.S., so what conservatives are doing is painting anyone who is isn't on the hard right as a Liberal. Only Americans do this. The U.S. is very far to the right. Obama is not liberal. That's the whole point. He's not a socialist either. If you think he is those things you just don't know anything about politics.

Even though the whole "Founding Father's" routine is used ad nauseum these days, I will venture to say that the idea that the American public has been choosing it's leaders based upon a perpetual political fetish surrounding who's doing what with their reproductive parts would make the bulk of them ROLL OVER IN THEIR GRAVES.

Considering most of them owned slaves and came from a time in which being gay wasn't accepted at all (and might get you jailed or killed)-I'd say you are wrong. Furthermore, we are talking about things they didn't envision. How can we say what they would or would not accept? And furthermore-Why should we hang our entire civilization on what some dead guys from 200 plus years ago thought about everything? At some point you have stop looking to the past and think about the future.

Originally posted by antonia

Really? Considering that most of the Conservatives in this country push Anti-gay laws I don't think so.

How clouded is your thinking? If we use the "textbook definition" of the words as you proposed doing with "Liberal" and "Libertarian" it absolutely, categorically IS a "Conservative" value in that it resists change to the Constitution. The Constitution has no provisions regarding homosexuals, abortion, or birth control. Thus...the government ought to STAY OUT of the "issues".

The salient and material FACT of the matter is that all of these religious zealot "Conservatives" are REALLY espousing "Liberalism" in that they are in favor of RADICALLY INCREASING GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OF YOUR SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS.

The whole point is that ALL OF US have QUITE OFTEN confused the "dictionary" definitions with the colloquial. "Conservative" right now in American politics is "supposed" to mean "religious nutcase who is so selfish and self-centered that they are unwilling to support buying textbooks for schools if it raises their precious taxes". Likewise "Liberal" in American politics is "supposed" to mean "A Communist who seeks to only support the lowest common denominator at the expense of the competent few". BOTH NOTIONS ARE UTTERLY RIDICULOUS.

Your EPA example doesn't work, most modern Conservatives would just say abolish the EPA entirely and don't even bother with a local solution. How are Liberals who don't want their water and air trashed going to accept that? They won't and you know that. But as I said, there is no liberal representation in the U.S., so what conservatives are doing is painting anyone who is isn't on the hard right as a Liberal.

Dead Wrong. The supposedly "Conservative" Ron Paul who once ran for President on the Libertarian ticket views pollution as being a crime against personal property. Therefore, any industrial plant which polluted the groundwater is responsible for actual and punitive damages for those it affected. Right now, we have a situation where the government fines the bejeebies out of the industrial plant...and the person who got cancer from contaminated groundwater is told to screw themselves...unless of course they are obscenely rich and can afford all that pricey litigation and paid-for "expert" testimony. That's just plain stupid...SOMETHING has gotta give. Ironically, the only pro-higher education and anti-war presidential candidate is ALSO the same "Conservative" who once upon a time was a member of the LIBERTARIANS...not to mention that he's a white man from Texas. The paradoxes seem to be endless.

Only Americans do this.

No...only American Punditry does this. Turn off the damn TV and do us all a favor and stop even USING the words "liberal" or "conservative" and "right" vs. "left" sorts of thinking. IT'S A SCAM.

The U.S. is very far to the right. Obama is not liberal. That's the whole point. He's not a socialist either. If you think he is those things you just don't know anything about politics.

The "whole country" is very far to the "stupid and gullible" irrespective of their political ideologies. No..Obama isn't a "liberal" and he CERTAINLY isn't a "socialist". He is a FASCIST just like George W. Bush before him. As the very inventor of Fascism, Benito Mussolini once said "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Considering most of them owned slaves and came from a time in which being gay wasn't accepted at all (and might get you jailed or killed)-I'd say you are wrong. Furthermore, we are talking about things they didn't envision. How can we say what they would or would not accept? And furthermore-Why should we hang our entire civilization on what some dead guys from 200 plus years ago thought about everything? At some point you have stop looking to the past and think about the future.

edit on 2-4-2012 by antonia because: forgot something

Ummm...contrary to what you might have been taught in your high school history book, George Washington was in favor of gays in the military (even those under his command at Valley Forge) and actually INVENTED the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. While "Don't ask, don't tell" might seem a bit regressive by today's standards...it was pretty damn enlightened for the time period. Link: www.bilerico.com...

However, this really shouldn't be a surprise given that Washington and his socialist buddy Thomas Jefferson frequently swapped marijuana plants in the efforts to produce a stronger and more potent strain to produce a better and longer lasting high. link: www.straightdope.com...

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Instead of focusing on unemployment, declining home values and foreclosures,

Obama played 9,000 rounds of golf and gave us Obamacare ( DOOMED) ,

Dodd-Frank FinReg and Solyndra.

Peggy Noonan says Obama has been transformed into a Not - So - Smooth Operator.

- WSJ: Peggy Noonan -

peggy noonan?...a millionaire not wanting FinReg or Obamas healthcare...i'm shocked!!, i tell you, just shocked!!

The Not - So - Smooth Operator Obama is becoming unglued.

They are even complaining about Obama on MSNBC!

It has been over 1,000 days and no budget from Senator Reid.

At least Paul Ryan has a plan that has passed the House of Representatives.

Attacking the Supreme Court as being "unelected" has backfired on Obama.

It's all going to get even worse for Obama between now and June 29, 2012.

Originally posted by CB328

Killing the Keystone Pipeline was a terrible decision for Obama.

Hardly, only republicans care about that, and they're not going to vote for him anyways.

Obama should have the upper hand going into the election. The oil companies, however, are trying to boot him out by raising gas prices. Normally they always lower them before and election to keep a low profile for themselves, but this time they hate him so they're keeping prices unnaturally high. This is a new phenomenon, so it makes it hard to call the election.

OOPS! I think you blew that one.

I think the - independents - ALSO care about the Keystone Pipeline.

Have you seen the price of gas recently?

Smoke is coming out of the ears of independents & Republicans.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Instead of focusing on unemployment, declining home values and foreclosures,

Obama played 9,000 rounds of golf and gave us Obamacare ( DOOMED) ,

Dodd-Frank FinReg and Solyndra.

Peggy Noonan says Obama has been transformed into a Not - So - Smooth Operator.

- WSJ: Peggy Noonan -

1) Obamacare was better than the status quo because millions of people now stand a chance at getting proper healthcare like the rest of the developed world.

2) Who gives a rat's ass about how much golf he played? Bush Jr was the holiday king, and I doubt we'll see anyone taking more than him anytime soon...but that's not the main reason I attack Bush.

3) Dodd Frank didn't go far enough...that's why the economy still isn't "fixed". Reckless deregulation caused this crisis, and sadly this hasn't been fixed. And yes, you can blame Obama for that. My feeling is, you believe Dodd Frank is too much regulation though

There's much you can criticize Obama for...but in the end, it doesn't matter. Why? Because the current GOP candidates are such clowns, they'd lose against a dog or cat

At least Paul Ryan has a plan that has passed the House of Representatives.

That doesn't make the Ryan plan any good...in fact, it's pure garbage that would actually INCREASE (!!!!!!!) the budget.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Instead of focusing on unemployment, declining home values and foreclosures,

Obama played 9,000 rounds of golf and gave us Obamacare ( DOOMED) ,

Dodd-Frank FinReg and Solyndra.

Peggy Noonan says Obama has been transformed into a Not - So - Smooth Operator.

- WSJ: Peggy Noonan -

1) Obamacare was better than the status quo because millions of people now stand a chance at getting proper healthcare like the rest of the developed world.

2) Who gives a rat's ass about how much golf he played? Bush Jr was the holiday king, and I doubt we'll see anyone taking more than him anytime soon...but that's not the main reason I attack Bush.

3) Dodd Frank didn't go far enough...that's why the economy still isn't "fixed". Reckless deregulation caused this crisis, and sadly this hasn't been fixed. And yes, you can blame Obama for that. My feeling is, you believe Dodd Frank is too much regulation though

There's much you can criticize Obama for...but in the end, it doesn't matter. Why? Because the current GOP candidates are such clowns, they'd lose against a dog or cat

At least Paul Ryan has a plan that has passed the House of Representatives.

That doesn't make the Ryan plan any good...in fact, it's pure garbage that would actually INCREASE (!!!!!!!) the budget.

edit on 4-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Paul Ryan has a plan that is a great start. It passed the House.

Now Harry Reid is suppose to pass a budget in the Senate. Reid is AWOL.

He has no plan at all. Over 1,000 days with no budget?

The liberals want to run the entire nation off a cliff and hope no one will see them do it.

-------
BTW, ObamaCare is dead. - RIP -

That's why Obama is already attacking the Supreme Court members as - unelected -.

We will kill Dodd - Frank FinReg next.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Paul Ryan has a plan that is a great start. It passed the House.

How on earth does that matter if it INCREASES the budget and makes everyone but the top 1% and defence contractors suffer???

How is that a "good start"? What do you consider a "bad start"?

Now Harry Reid is suppose to pass a budget in the Senate. Reid is AWOL.

He has no plan at all. Over 1,000 days with no budget?

You do realize that no deadline has passed, right? It's taking a long time because fixing this giant mess isn't easy. Ryan demonstrates that impressively because his rushed plan is pure garbage

BTW, ObamaCare is dead. - RIP -

Wanna bet on that? I'm happy to bet against you, just like I did when you claimed Palin will be the next president

We will kill Dodd - Frank FinReg next.

Can you tell us why exactly you hate Dodd-Frank? Is it regulating too much? Not enough? What's you concrete issue with the act?

I'm actually genuinely curious about that: Why are you against Dodd-Frank? What part of it do you disagree with? Or are you merely parroting sound bites from pundits without actually understanding what they're talking about?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Paul Ryan has a plan that is a great start. It passed the House.

How on earth does that matter if it INCREASES the budget and makes everyone but the top 1% and defence contractors suffer???

How is that a "good start"? What do you consider a "bad start"?

Now Harry Reid is suppose to pass a budget in the Senate. Reid is AWOL.

He has no plan at all. Over 1,000 days with no budget?

You do realize that no deadline has passed, right? It's taking a long time because fixing this giant mess isn't easy. Ryan demonstrates that impressively because his rushed plan is pure garbage

BTW, ObamaCare is dead. - RIP -

Wanna bet on that? I'm happy to bet against you, just like I did when you claimed Palin will be the next president

We will kill Dodd - Frank FinReg next.

Can you tell us why exactly you hate Dodd-Frank? Is it regulating too much? Not enough? What's you concrete issue with the act?

I'm actually genuinely curious about that: Why are you against Dodd-Frank? What part of it do you disagree with? Or are you merely parroting sound bites from pundits without actually understanding what they're talking about?

edit on 4-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

The Paul Ryan plan needs to be altered.

He got most of it correct. The Republican sitting in the White House will simply add to

the Paul Ryan plan around January 22, 2013. Paul Ryan is helping Romney directly

on the campaign trail.
--------
Gov. Sarah Palin was great on NBC yesterday on the Today Show.

They even loved her on MSNBC. They all said Gov. Sarah Palin was great and

that she has the "it" factor like Reagan & Obama.
--------
Dodd - Frank just moved jobs overseas.

It was just another way to attack capitalism.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

The Paul Ryan plan needs to be altered.

He got most of it correct. The Republican sitting in the White House will simply add to

the Paul Ryan plan around January 22, 2013. Paul Ryan is helping Romney directly

on the campaign trail.

Damn straight it needs to be altered given that in its current form it screws over the citizens and increases the budget.

What do you mean with "got most of it correct"? It INCREASES the budget, and only benefits the top 1% (some even only the top 0.5%, lol) and defence contractors. What part did he get correct?

Gov. Sarah Palin was great on NBC yesterday on the Today Show.

They even loved her on MSNBC. They all said Gov. Sarah Palin was great and

that she has the "it" factor like Reagan & Obama.

Tell me, what has Palin ever accomplished? She's a political cheerleader for crying out loud! She was talking about HAIR PRODUCTS on MSNBC

She doesn't hold any political office, is a failed governor, demonstrably not intelligent apart from being a marketing puppet, and otherwise hasn't benefited the nation in any way. She's a clown used to "rile up the masses"

Dodd - Frank just moved jobs overseas.

It was just another way to attack capitalism.

Oh has it now? According to this graph unemployment actually went down since the act began.

The act sadly didn't go far enough, that's the problem. Reckless deregulation of the financial industry caused this issue, and crisis like this make it completely irrelevant if companies are moving off shore or not. People aren't hiring during a financial crisis, and a crisis like that is now bound to happen again because Dodd-Frank doesn't regulate the industry enough. They can still screw over the entire nation...but at least it fixed some of the loopholes.

You know who's in favor of shipping jobs off shore? The GOP!

Why? Because medical aid for 911 first responders (aka heros) was supposed to be funded by fixing tax loopholes allowing companies to ship jobs offshore and use tax havens. Guess which party voted against this...and I mean all of them, not just some...the GOP.

So next time you accuse someone of allowing jobs to be shipped off-shore, you might wanna double check who votes for what within the GOP

reply to post by MrXYZ


Dodd - Frank also created the CFPB.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

We need to stop growing the size of government.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Dodd - Frank also created the CFPB.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

We need to stop growing the size of government.

How is an agency trying to make sure the financial industry can't screw us over anymore bad???

You're just repeating slogans without actually understanding the issues. That agency was put in place to prevent crisis like the one we're experiencing at the moment.

Tell us, how is that a bad thing? How exactly is them protecting you from the financial industry bad given we are currently in a crisis caused by the financial industry?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Dodd - Frank also created the CFPB.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

We need to stop growing the size of government.

How is an agency trying to make sure the financial industry can't screw us over anymore bad???

You're just repeating slogans without actually understanding the issues. That agency was put in place to prevent crisis like the one we're experiencing at the moment.

Tell us, how is that a bad thing? How exactly is them protecting you from the financial industry bad given we are currently in a crisis caused by the financial industry?

The Federal Reserve is funding the CFPB with $500 Million.
Apparently, running to congress for funding is too much of a hassle.

We don't have cash to burn. We have a $16 Trillion national debt.

Start cutting not growing the size of government.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Dodd - Frank also created the CFPB.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

We need to stop growing the size of government.

How is an agency trying to make sure the financial industry can't screw us over anymore bad???

You're just repeating slogans without actually understanding the issues. That agency was put in place to prevent crisis like the one we're experiencing at the moment.

Tell us, how is that a bad thing? How exactly is them protecting you from the financial industry bad given we are currently in a crisis caused by the financial industry?

The Federal Reserve is funding the CFPB with $500 Million.
Apparently, running to congress for funding is too much of a hassle.

We don't have cash to burn. We have a $16 Trillion national debt.

Start cutting not growing the size of government.

Of course it's going to cost money running an agency like that. But $500m is NOTHING compared to how much the financial industry has screwed us over. I'd rather spend $500m on an agency that tries to prevent that than losing TRILLIONS to the financial industry next time they screw up...not sure about you

By the way, do you see the irony in you asking for budget cuts at the same time as cheering for Ryan's plan?

reply to post by MrXYZ


The $500 Million is nothing attitude got us into this mess.

Standby to see the US government downsized.

EPA....Dept. of Education...etc.

We will also raise the retirement age to 67 just like Canada.


This election will be about the - size & scope - of the US government.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

The $500 Million is nothing attitude got us into this mess.

Standby to see the US government downsized.

EPA....Dept. of Education...etc.

We will also raise the retirement age to 67 just like Canada.

This election will be about the - size & scope - of the US government.

No, letting the financial industry go wild without any boundaries was nuts and got us into this mess.

This agency's job is it to make sure that can't happen again, and the EPA makes sure your kids chew on lead paint toys, and the department of education makes sure the general population can get an education (because privatized universities are too expensive for most...I went to one, so I know). You are simply repeating slogans you hear without ever thinking about the consequences.

In your world, you are in favor of cutting the budget, but then cheer for the budget plan that INCREASES the budget. You then go on listing departments you would close, departments that make sure YOU and your KIDS are protected from lead paint, the financial industry, and being systematically dumbed down.

You are getting your "news" from Fox it seems, the very network who decided not to broadcast in Canada after the Canadians told them they aren't allowed to lie on air