The Sarah Palin Thread: 'Controversial Controversy' Edition

[DACrowe]

I wasn't expecting "change" to happen over night, or even need to see it now.....I JUST DIDN'T THINK I WOULD SEE EXACTLY THE SAME THING HAPPENING....Spending out the ass, only "spending out the ass on crack" now.....

That has nothing to do with change, that has everything to do with growing government at an even faster rate, no transparency WHATSOEVER, which was a tent pole of his campaign.

To be fair, the two things Obama has spent heavily on:

1) Health care which he campaigned on

2) Stimulus and supplemental programs for unemployment benefits and tax credits for small businesses.

The latter was done so as to avoid Depression. Whether you agree with that or not, I don't think he was openly trying to expand the government anywhere other than in the healthcare industry and the EPA. Both of those he campaigned on.

Now taking such a partisan tone...or DC just staying so divided, anyway....that I can understand.

 

[Kelly]

Again, and maybe for the 20th time, I'm not sure......lol

Health Care Reform is not the problem, the far reaching extent of this reform is the problem. The fact that I'm not sure HE even knows what all is in this bill...bothers me. When you are working on 16% of the overall budget, you damn well better know what is in the bill.

I have to say that the Debt Commission has some good areas to start except that there is nothing in it about job growth...but unfortunately, it probably won't go forward.

There is major anxiety, coupled with the deficit is not giving the people who hire the confidence to hire.....UNTIL that happens.....nothing will change.

 

[DACrowe]

I was merely talking about where his massive amounts of spending have been. I don't think it is a masterplan of government expansion, so much as emergency pumping of the economy to prevent a collapse (as well as HC being the other big ticket item). So, the idea that it is some Blosheveki expansion is what I was rejecting.

I personally do not think the deficit is the cause of the stagnating job growth. Fears of a double dip recession or a flatlining economy have more to do with it than a debt that is too big and will hurt us 20-30 years down the road. Saving millions of jobs and keeping us from going off the cliff was worth the near-trillion dollar expenditure on the economy of the last two years.

However, despite public work making up 2/3 of GDP growth in the first two quarters of five consecutive quarters of growth is not inspiring the private sector to invest. At this point, as most economists are saying we survived going into a double dip, it is time to instill confidence in the private sector by cutting the deficit in other areas...just not on the backs of the American people. Tax credits for the rich? If temporary, sure. But that doesn't mean you get to cut $20 billion a year for unemployment benefits for those that are actually suffering.

We'll see if such a sensible compromise an be made.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't care about Obama's spending because I was expecting liberal policies - and was cool with that.

What I care about is the fact Obama is more partisan than any other President we have had in a long time, what I care about is the fact the Obama administration's' record with transparency is as good as Bush's, what I care about is the complete failure on Obama's part to change, or even to attempt to change, the culture in Washington.

It was for that reason that I was excited about his election and it is on that issue he has truly revealed himself to be the snake he is.

 

[Kelly]

I don't care about Obama's spending because I was expecting liberal policies - and was cool with that.

What I care about is the fact Obama is more partisan than any other President we have had in a long time, what I care about is the fact the Obama administration's' record with transparency is as good as Bush's, what I care about is the complete failure on Obama's part to change, or even to attempt to change, the culture in Washington.

It was for that reason that I was excited about his election and it is on that issue he has truly revealed himself to be the snake he is.

Exactly.....

For me, transparency was a HUGE ISSUE, probably the catalyst for my vote.....THAT is why I'm disappointed. I DON'T MIND SPENDING, I HAVE NEVER MINDED SPENDING....I am quite liberal on social issues, and don't mind paying for things AS LONG AS THERE IS TRANSPARENCY, EFFICIENCY, AND SMART DECISIONS IN THE SPENDING. I don't see ANY of this from EITHER PARTY. Obama is President therefore he will get my wrath, just as Bush did....just as every President will until I get my way damn it.....

 

[AG1973]

I don't care about Obama's spending because I was expecting liberal policies - and was cool with that.

What I care about is the fact Obama is more partisan than any other President we have had in a long time, what I care about is the fact the Obama administration's' record with transparency is as good as Bush's, what I care about is the complete failure on Obama's part to change, or even to attempt to change, the culture in Washington.

It was for that reason that I was excited about his election and it is on that issue he has truly revealed himself to be the snake he is.

How can a President change the culture in Washington when before he was inaugurated there was a call from the opposition party for him to fail. From day one republicans set out to stop block or hinder any iniiative even if it has republican ideas just because it came from the President.

President Obama recived more death threats from racist wing nuts than any other President when he won in 08 till inaguration day he is still getting them now. The republican party is courting the hatemongers and the fringe of their party.

Rand Paul incoming senator thinks Jim Crow laws are ok, Michelle Bachman wants all democrats in congress investigated for un-American thinking, another incoming representative wants President Obama impeached because he is not an American in his view. The list of hateful conservative radicals goes on.

How much can the President do when 75% of republicans in federal elected office hate him and fear him.

 

[StorminNorman]

Show me where the GOP called for him to fail.

You are also completely wrong about the GOP being in lock step to destroy Obama, I remember meeting with a senior GOP Congressman for a strategy meeting in January of 2008 and he was extremely optimistic about working with Obama (and considering he was meeting with his advisers and not the media it was not a PR comment).

Rand Paul never voiced support for Jim Crow laws. Having reasonable objections to the Civil Rights Act is not being hateful.

Obama entered office with 71% approval rating. He has earned all the hatred he has in his court. It's due to his arrogance, incompetence and hypocrisy - not his skin color. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional and dooming the quality of their opinion.

 

[Kelly]

How can a President change the culture in Washington when before he was inaugurated there was a call from the opposition party for him to fail. From day one republicans set out to stop block or hinder any iniiative even if it has republican ideas just because it came from the President.

President Obama recived more death threats from racist wing nuts than any other President when he won in 08 till inaguration day he is still getting them now. The republican party is courting the hatemongers and the fringe of their party.

Rand Paul incoming senator thinks Jim Crow laws are ok, Michelle Bachman wants all democrats in congress investigated for un-American thinking, another incoming representative wants President Obama impeached because he is not an American in his view. The list of hateful conservative radicals goes on.

How much can the President do when 75% of republicans in federal elected office hate him and fear him.

Very simple, by modeling that "change"....

 

[StorminNorman]

When Barack Obama was inaugurated he was the most powerful politician Washington had had in decades. If changing the culture was something he wanted, he could have had it (he could have even controlled Pelosi).

We should have known better, however, than to expect a CHICAGO politician to clean up the culture of anything. Chicago is the only place more corrupt than Washington.

 

[Carcharodon]

You should have known better than to expect any politician to change the culture. I'm not convinced that Obama ever had the capability, and I'm also not convinced that he didn't know it.

 

[AG1973]

Show me where the GOP called for him to fail.

You are also completely wrong about the GOP being in lock step to destroy Obama, I remember meeting with a senior GOP Congressman for a strategy meeting in January of 2008 and he was extremely optimistic about working with Obama (and considering he was meeting with his advisers and not the media it was not a PR comment).

Rand Paul never voiced support for Jim Crow laws. Having reasonable objections to the Civil Rights Act is not being hateful.

Obama entered office with 71% approval rating. He has earned all the hatred he has in his court. It's due to his arrogance, incompetence and hypocrisy - not his skin color. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional and dooming the quality of their opinion.

Rush Limbaugh, and Sara Palin did call for him to fail.

What reasonable objections can there be to the Civil Rights Act in your opinion?

 

[StorminNorman]

Rush Limbaugh, and Sara Palin did call for him to fail.

Okay, so the GOP did not call for him to fail. Gotcha.

What reasonable objections can there be to the Civil Rights Act in your opinion?

The government has no rights to interfere with the practices of private businesses. I don't what the objective is. An owner, for example, has the right to serve anyone they choose to serve - the government has no right to tell them they must serve a black person or a white person.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Okay, so the GOP did not call for him to fail. Gotcha.



The government has no rights to interfere with the practices of private businesses. I don't what the objective is. An owner, for example, has the right to serve anyone they choose to serve - the government has no right to tell them they must serve a black person or a white person.

So when black men sat at diners in the segregated south, you agree that they should have been denied service? Should they have been forcibly removed by the police, as they were?

 

[StorminNorman]

So when black men sat at diners in the segregated south, you agree that they should have been denied service? Should they have been forcibly removed by the police, as they were?

I believe that a private business has no requirement to serve anyone they do not wish to serve. I also believe that no man of any sort has to allow another man on his property that he does not wish to be on it (legal issues regarding police aside).

As such, I would say yes on both.

That does not mean I remotely support the actions of said diner owners - but true freedom is about defending the actions of people you disagree with. If freedom only pertained to people who acted rationally, it wouldn't be freedom.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I believe that a private business has no requirement to serve anyone they do not wish to serve. I also believe that no man of any sort has to allow another man on his property that he does not wish to be on it (legal issues regarding police aside).

As such, I would say yes on both.

That does not mean I remotely support the actions of said diner owners - but true freedom is about defending the actions of people you disagree with. If freedom only pertained to people who acted rationally, it wouldn't be freedom.

But should the rights of many be ignored to safeguard the rights of a few irrational people? Is that justice?

 

[StorminNorman]

But should the rights of many be ignored to safeguard the rights of a few irrational people? Is that justice?

What right is being ignored?

You don't have a right to eat in my restaurant. You don't have a right to my service. It doesn't matter if your white, black, red or green.

 

[StorminNorman]

No one has a right to be treated like everyone else.

Hot girls are treated differently than ugly girls.

Smart people are treated differently than stupid people.

Stoned people are treated differently than sober people.

Etc.

 

[Hobgoblin]

“We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”

 

[StorminNorman]

You have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Not the right to my service in my restaurant and my food.

 

[Hobgoblin]

You have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Not the right to my service in my restaurant and my food.

Sounds like "pursuit of happiness" to me.

 

[StorminNorman]

You need to get your hearing checked.

If I purchase a building, I can lock the door and allow only certain people I want in. Would you agree with that? Or do you believe that if I purchase a building I have no say over who comes into that building?

 

[StorminNorman]

It always surprised me that it's so hard for people to grasp what seems to me to be such a self-evident point.

 

[Hobgoblin]

You are comparing a private residence to a place of business, where you want people to feel free to enter? Excluding people based on race seems like a poor business plan. Are you really going to care if that extra money came from a white or black hand?

And you may feel that this is a simple point, but I am just as struck by the reactionary attitude. Your philosophy is a Giant Leap Backwards.

 

[StorminNorman]

What is different between a private residence and a private business? Both are PRIVATE, the ownership of both resides with the owner.

SOME BUSINESSES want people free to enter. An exclusive country club? They don't want just anybody to enter. A strip club? They don't want just anybody to enter. A business owned by a bitter, ignorant white racist? He probably doesn't want black folks to enter his restaurant. A business owned by a bitter, ignorant black racist? He probably doesn't want white folks to enter his restaurant. In all these cases it is the OWNERS that get to (or, in any rational, reasonable society respecting property rights should get to) regulate what goes on on their property.

My philosophy is the only way for mankind to advance. My philosophy would not permit myself, for example, to ever treat a black man differently due to his race. My philosophy, however, does not state that you do not have the ability to be ignorant. I understand that I have no right to dictate the actions of anyone else. You should understand that you have no right to dictate the actions of anyone else. As long as you respect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (which means to respect the sovereignty of an owner to his property) everything else falls into place.

I believe man has the right to be wrong. You apparently don't. I wonder which one is more rational? More reasonable?

 

[Hobgoblin]

I disagree. I think your philosophy keeps society static. If that makes me a fascist, than I am a proud fascist.I think its more reasonable to let people eat at any restaurant they darn well please. That goes for racist old white men and racist old black men. As long as the restaurant patrons are being respectful, the owner cant say boo. You seem very concerned about the rights of business owners. I am more concerned about the community they serve.