Disqus - Friends of lisabrite

Re: McCain: Offshore oil drilling benefits 'psychological'

thefold-Chris — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:25:59 -0000

Dude, I love this place. Read your email, please.

Re: CNN cribbing FOX's motto: We've got the facts, you decide

thefold-Chris — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:41:46 -0000

"It's one thing to criticize him for being too moderate; but attacking his trustworthiness is not cool, not right now, especially when such attacks rely on comic strip characterizations of Barack, and it's even worse to suggest that his supporters didn't really know him, and are just beginning to see who he really is now. (Plus, it's wrong.)"

I don't know, Jed. I see your point, but I also don't think it's necessarily wrong to state that there are many Obama supporters finally getting to see Obama as a politician, rather than saying for who he really is. At least I've not heard or read any Obama supporter say that they are finally seeing him for who he really is. But I have heard/read many say that they are disappointed with his new FISA stance and that they are seeing him more as someone who wants to get elected. I see nothing wrong with that, because that is true also.

This is a big issue for some people. I don't think it's a single issue voter item, like abortion is for some people, but it is an important one. Us being able to say that we are disappointed in Senator Obama's reversal on FISA shows that we, at the very least, belong to a Party that allows dissent whereas the GOP would never allow such to happen.

I still support Obama regardless of where he currently stands on FISA. And I also do like when the person I'm supporting keeps their word. I'm not going to get my way on this it appears. I'm used to that though.

Re: CNN cribbing FOX's motto: We've got the facts, you decide

thefold-Chris — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:56:23 -0000

Oh I agree now is not the time to push the meme, but I see nothing wrong with some disappointment amongst Obama supporters. I would much rather see dissent than be a part of a Party that never allows it. I'm rather proud of the fact that opinions are allowed to be voiced. Does this bring Obama down to being a politician versus being a "hero." Sure it does. He's human, but I do agree we will have plenty of time to do that after he wins. In the meantime, I'm still disappointed.

Also, I come from a policy background; so I hate to see bad policy like the new FISA compromise. Though I've heard many a time that it's up to the courts to decide what's bad policy and what's not. I'm not sure I always buy into that but it's very true most politicians could careless about policy. I don't know how many times I've written legislation that I knew the courts would toss out in two seconds.

With ethanol, Obama's from Illinois. Huge ethanol state. I think for right now his ethanol stance is consistent with what it's been since he ran for US Senate in '04. I don't see him changing his ethanol stance until after winning the presidency, if even then. He'll probably try to support various forms of alternative energies for as long as possible.

I'm ready to win too my man!!

Re: This is definitely not a major story

thefold-Chris — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:09:04 -0000

Of course it's not a major story. Obama is a black muslim, America hating elitist only wanting to socialize our government. It's a good thing the very serious media doesn't pick up on the fact that Obama is a patriot. The Maverick on the other hand is super serious and has nothing in common with George Bush. I don't need to read the transcript to figure this out.

When will all this end Jed? Please tell me soon.

Re: Jonah Goldberg: Ronald Reagan Has A Patriotism Problem

thefold-Chris — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:16:40 -0000

Of course people like Jonah think America is great just the way it is. Where else on earth could you sit on your fat ass and cheer on war like he has. In what other country could you possibly be a great Warrior Patriot with a rapid fire keyboard like Jonah? This country currently to them is the greatest spot in the galaxy. They can question everyone elses patriotism while they live their life in complete void of anything remotely close to what they advocate. Patriotism to Jonah Goldberg and the likes is a flag pin on your lapel; constant cheer leading for Glorious War; the view that American exceptionalism should be the guiding light to all of our policies foreign and domestic. And the mindset that anyone who might actually think their make believe world full of chickenhawks tripping over their keyboards isn't actually purposeful for any war much less the 'calling of our generation' is unpatriotic and shouldn't be trusted with anything as Serious as running our government.

It's not that Jonah has a hatred, or maybe it's not only hatred that Jonah has for a certain class of Americans, it's that he has a different ideology altogether. It's an ideology focused on doing what he can to cover up the void that so reflects the opposite of everything he advocates, especially war and patriotism.

Re: Boycott Back On

thefold-Chris — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:42:56 -0000

This is a new comment thingy I've added. It's supposed to be better than blogger and be able to track comments much easier. If people have trouble leaving comments let me know. Also, it should allow people to post without verifying comments. If it doesn't work like that let me know. Thanks!!

Re: Jonah Goldberg: Ronald Reagan Has A Patriotism Problem

thefold-Chris — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:29:41 -0000

Looks like Jonah the Great has picked up on your post Jed.

Even if we take Jonah's new comment to mean that Reagan's quote is different, which that's hair splitting but I'll give it to him, then according to what Jonah is saying is that Reagan meant America had been great once before but wasn't at the particular point in time. In other words, in Jonah's rapid fire keyboard world, Reagan took a once great country and made it great again whereas Obama is saying America has never been great. Obama has never said that, nonetheless that doesn't stop Jonah from making the distinction between Warrior Tough Guy Reagan and Liberal Obama.

It's either that rationale or the fact that Reagan was coming in after four years of liberal rule, thus meaning America wasn't great anymore. Whereas Obama would be coming in after 8 years of prosperity, ass whooping, small government and war-filled years. In Jonah's world that's his distinction of what makes America great and who can lead us to it.

Re: Maybe Just a Little

thefold-Chris — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:00:26 -0000

My conclusion, both are patriots and damn the Republicans for thinking they can even dictate to the American people what patriotism is when we're swimming in debt and fighting endless wars.

Re: More GOP Lies

thefold-Chris — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:42:36 -0000

Right, and McSame is lying when he says he will. Of course he won't. We all know he won't. But he keeps saying he will because he's allowed a free pass on it since he was a POW. He's a Republican, at least this week he is. He can't be questioned.

Re: Every Time the Wind Blows

thefold-Chris — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:18:19 -0000

Kent, there is no comparison between Obama and McSame. Obama hasn't come anywhere near making bold promises without supplying the details, or at least the proposal, to back it up. McCain's story changed twice in one day. And then on the next day it changed again. And then, later on the second day, when giving a speech in Denver McCain wouldn't even mention his "balance the budget in four years" promise, merely only saying that he'll get finances in order. That's a huge stretch from a promise, just the day before, that he would balance the budget in four years. He just can't keep his story straight.

The budget you say the Republicans balanced was a budget proposed by the Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Congress doesn't propose the budget, the president does. Furthermore, Clinton vetoed 37 bills. 10 of those were spending bills. One of the 10 spending bills was the 1995 budget presented to him by the Republican Congress, a budget that cut taxes and did nothing but increase the debt. Clinton sent it back. The budget that was eventually passed was more in line with Clinton's original version and delivered the country three consecutive surpluses. The Republican Congress kept Clinton in check no doubt. But he wisely used his presidential vetoes to keep the tax and spend Republicans in line. Once Clinton left office Bush never once vetoed a single spending bill until the Democrats came to power. 6 years of total Republican rule left us in the worst financial situation since the Great Depression.

You really are making this too easy Kent ;)

Re: Webb Says No to VP

thefold-Chris — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:25:57 -0000

Iraq isn't an issue? I believe it will be. Republicans are hoping it won't be, but it will be. What's being in the senate got to do with being VP?

You've been predicting Sebellius? I didn't know that. I'm hearing Bayh is close to the top of the list.

Thanks for reading Kent.

Re: This is the GOP and Its Bandwagon

thefold-Chris — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:39:14 -0000

Any links to prove that countries are drilling near and/or around Florida? VP Big Dick Cheney retracted his false statement that China was drilling off the shores of Florida.

Proactive? Let's see, tax breaks for Big Oil. The McCain Clearing House to develop a Super Battery. A gas tax holiday that would actually cost the government billions of dollars, a government that is already swimming in debt. Doesn't sound very proactive to me.

Moving to ethanol, which is what Obama supports sounds rather proactive and could possibly maybe be considered "proactive."

My proposals probably aren't as important as the two gentlemen running for president are since what I say usually doesn't go too far. But I think we should drill wherever we can for however long we can. We should also pass the Democratic bill currently sitting in Congress that would end speculation, which is running up prices more than supply levels. We should then also pursue alternative energy sources to combat not only our addiction to foreign oil, which Bush makes millions from, but also our addiction to oil in general, which Bush makes millions from.

Ending speculative buying-- paper buying-- more drilling and alternative energy sources including ethanol and Super Batteries would go a long way in reducing gasoline prices. It's not a perfect fix but it's a damn good start.

Fair enough or you disagree?

Re: Every Time the Wind Blows

thefold-Chris — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:33:43 -0000

Jaz, you must have had too many PBR's last night :)

I think you are going to have to be a little bit more specific cause I'm kinda lost in your comment. What legit criticism was leveled at Barack that I relentlessly attacked McCain for?

Who leveled a charge against my guy that I went nah-nah-nah with?

I think if you read this blog you'll see I hit Obama rather hard when he changed his position on FISA. Here and here. Outside of that change, he hasn't buckled on any of his campaign rhetoric.

If I'm not allowed to contrast Obama with the guy running against him, or vice versa, then what in the world am I allowed to do? Last time I checked the race for president was between two top contenders. When talking about Obama or McCain, if I can't compare and contrast, I'm not sure there really is any reason to have an election. Let's just crown McSame and get it over with.

I think what this boils down to is that Republicans don't want Bush brought up when talking about the election. They don't even want McCain brought up. They just want the focus on Obama and Jeremiah Wright and all the other terrorists they say Obama is associated with. I think that just shows a fundamental weakness in the McCain campaign strategy.

You have already told me Bush was irrelevant to any campaign discussion. And now I can't compare Obama to McCain either. Plus I have no clue what legit criticism was leveled against my guy that I didn't respond "correctly" with.

Good to see you commenting Jaz. I thought maybe all your wild women had you staying up way too late or something.

Re: Every Time the Wind Blows

thefold-Chris — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:05:33 -0000

Hey, where's my one economic indicator? Just one is all I'm asking for.

Re: Newsflash: Iraq Doesn't Want to be Occupied

thefold-Chris — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:46:58 -0000

I see, so whatever works is Republican and whatever doesn't obviously has nothing to do with the GOP. It's such a black and white world in the Republican Fantasy World.

I don't disagree that if elected our troops would stay in Iraq for however long McSame decries necessary, which is forever. I also don't disagree that a Republican president would disregard the will of the Iraqi people and keep our troops there for another hundred years. I agree with you totally.

The Democrats are not backed into a corner, not even close. Every poll shows Obama ahead of McCain; 70% of the American people oppose George Bush-- or as you say have anti-Bush fervor; the Dow just experienced its worse June since 1930; unemployment is on the rise; poverty is on the rise; Bush has gas at over $4/gallon with no energy policy whatsoever; 70% of the American people oppose the Iraq war; Bush created the largest deficit in American history; two incumbent Republican Congressmen are sitting in prison; I could go on and on. Bush is a complete failure and he is the legacy of the GOP.

It's funny to me that both Bush and McCain have been saying all along if the Iraqi people wanted us out we would leave. Now that they are telling us to give them a timetable for withdrawal, Bush uses every excuse to occupy Iraq forever. Forever war, that's what Republican chickenhawks are voting for.

Re: Newsflash: Iraq Doesn't Want to be Occupied

thefold-Chris — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:00:08 -0000

Oversimplifying isn't a word that should be in the same sentence with Iraq. Needless to say that we aren't in a position to negotiate a timetable for withdrawal either. All along Bush and McSame have been saying that if Iraq asked us to leave that we would have to. Now that Iraq is asking for a timetable to withdraw our troops, Bush and McSame are saying that it will be the situation on the ground that dictates our troop reductions and not the current government whose country we are occupying. That's not negotiating. That's called occupation. If you consider endless occupation a diplomatic success for Bush, I would hate to see what you would call democracy.

I love your time line of Hussein, however. Typical Republican revisionist history. You forget that it was Reagan who armed, funded and supported Saddam. It was Reagan who empowered him and supplied him with the chemical weapons that he used on his own people. You blame Clinton for not being tougher on Saddam when Reagan did everything in his power to create Saddam. Saddam Hussein was a Republican ally and the reality that we live in today would have been much different without Reagan. But to Republicans Reagan did nothing wrong, because back then Saddam and bin Laden were our terrorists and blaming them is some sort of liberal conspiracy theory. Clinton and Carter, oh yes, they deserve all the blame.

Wanting to drill is not a policy. Policy is the substance of legislative achievements. Bush has no energy policy at all. $4 gas is a direct result of a lack of an energy policy, so yes Bush is responsible for giving us $4 gas. I never said presidents set prices. But their policies or lack thereof do reflect in our market.

Yes it's called a recession and it's because of Bush's handling. I don't disagree that the American economy is the strongest or most sound in the world. It surely is. But Bush has presided over the highest gas prices in history; the weakest dollar in history; the smallest Dow gain since the Great Depression; the largest deficit in history; the first wage reduction since the Depression; the largest bank collapse since the Great Depression; it's an economy in worse shape than when he found it. The Bush economy is an economy in decline, an economy facing its greatest challenges since the 1930s.

What I don't get is that you argue not one item I mention with any supportive facts or links but simply with I'm a hater, Bush is the greatest and Clinton and Carter are to blame. I would really like to know what part of:

"Every poll shows Obama ahead of McCain; 70% of the American people oppose George Bush-- or as you say have anti-Bush fervor; the Dow just experienced its worse June since 1930; unemployment is on the rise; poverty is on the rise; Bush has gas at over $4/gallon with no energy policy whatsoever; 70% of the American people oppose the Iraq war; Bush created the largest deficit in American history; two incumbent Republican Congressmen are sitting in prison; I could go on and on. Bush is a complete failure and he is the legacy of the GOP."

Or anything I said in this reply isn't accurate? I'm also still waiting for you to supply one economic indicator that is better or stronger under Bush than Clinton. Your classic argument that Bush is the greatest, Clinton is a coward or the Bush economy is the greatest economy in American history barbs don't stand up Kent.

To me patriotism is faith in one another as countrymen. It's also a number of things and to me it's NOT simply putting your country first. Some how I believe you would think McCain's answer was the end all no matter what he said, and that Obama's answer was unpatriotic. Obama is a patriot and so is McCain.

Re: Every Time the Wind Blows

thefold-Chris — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:39:05 -0000

Yeah I'm just sitting here watching baseball as well. There's nothing like baseball. Thanks for checking back my man.

I totally agree this election is all about Obama. But it's also all about McCain and Bush and Clinton and all sorts of different issues and people. Forgetting all about George Bush is impossible and dishonest. It's as if Republicans want to say "forget about the last 8 years, what's important is that you give us another 4." We can no more forget about George Bush than we can be forced to remember Reagan every time a Republican speaks.

If Bush had been a successful president I have no doubt Republicans would use his name as often as Reagan's. Since Bush is the least popular president in modern history, Republicans want the discussion ONLY to be
about Obama and nothing about Bush or McCain. It just doesn't work that way. You may insist it does but in the world I live in Bush is the current two term president who's almost entirely responsible for endless wars filled with blunders, the biggest deficit in our nation's history, the first wage reduction since the Great Depression, the first banking bailout since the Great Depression, the highest gas prices in history, the weakest dollar since maybe ever and the list goes on. That is Bush's legacy and the GOP
has every reason to insist we not talk about Bush. I hope the American people don't allow such nonsense. Judging by the last 8 years of Republican rule, this country just can't afford another four.

Yes Obama is flawed. I wouldn't want a candidate, a friend of mine as well, that didn't have flaws. I'm as flawed as they come. In this age of super hero candidates I much prefer a down to earth human with flaws over a poster
boy. But the charge that Obama has flip flopped more than Romney and is flopping with the band is just as misplaced as the thought that discussions about this year's election shouldn't include mentions of George Bush.

As I noted earlier Obama completely flipped on his FISA stance no doubt about it, but as far as any other issue I'm not aware of any flip flops. Please be more specific and try to link to some of his flips that you say make John Kerry look like a punter. I'd be curious to read up on it.
However, in my understanding, Obama's ever changing FISA stance is nothing when compared to the multitude of McSame's flips just this week.

For instance, today McCain completely changed>his stance on gay adoption. He also switched over to Obama's plan for sending more troops to Afghanistan, a complete reversal from his prior stance that Iraq is the central front. That's two major reversals in three days. If we go back to Friday, McCain flipped, flopped and then flipped again on Senator Gramm's remarks. There are plenty more I'm sure I could list in about ten minutes. But if I remember correctly I'm not allowed to talk about McCain or Bush but only
focus squarely on Obama, which dumbfounds me by the way. So just as soon as you can supply a link or two about Obama's monumental changes in policy so I might be as convinced as you about it, I'll hold off.

See ya buddy.

Re: Stark Differences

thefold-Chris — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:32:54 -0000

I don't trust Congress, Democratic or Republican, to do much of anything except make life harder. It's always been a very unpopular institution and most days it's hard to find any good in it. With that said, it's obvious Republicans are not the small government, less interventionists they claim to be. It would be much more accurate for Republicans to say "yes we believe in socialism but only for businesses." And that's the difference between what Republicans view as government's role and Democrats.

I think if the government sees a need to give welfare to predatory lenders it should also help the people with the crappy loans. Or do neither and get out of the welfare business all together. My point in all of this is to show that Republicans are for government social programs even though they base their entire political careers on the opposite. They just want those programs focused on businesses rather than individuals. Either way it's still socialism and it should be treated just the same as it would when Obama calls for expanding government.

Good to see ya around Lisa :)

Re: Stark Differences

thefold-Chris — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:57:19 -0000

Not necessarily. Some Democrats absolutely believe in socialism, while others like me believe that government owes more to citizens (individuals) than it does business. After all, the money the government is giving out is citizen money. Republicans appear to not want anything to do with the individual aspect unless it's for rich people and want to label anyone who doesn't line up behind them as communists.

"Get the government out of everybody's business. (Well, I don't know about going as far as the libertarians would...but there should be more limits than there are now.) Businesses should take responsibility for their own failures (in most cases), and so should people who completely understood the risks they were taking with their loans and took the risk anyway." I totally agree

"There is a difference between Republicans and conservatives. Surely you understand this." Absolutely! Haven't I been saying that all along? There's a difference between conservatives and Republicans and liberals and Democrats. I think the last true conservative government was Barry Goldwater in the 60s. Newt and his gang were anything but conservative and are responsible for the Republicans we have today.

Well, when Democrats propose government programs Republicans want to call that socialism. I can't think of the last time a Democrat called a Republican a socialist. But yes if we consider expanding government to be socialism then there is no bigger socialist than George Bush. All of Obama's government expansion programs would fit in just one of Bush's expansions, Homeland Security. Of course Bush has done more than create DHS, he's created No Child Left Behind, he's created a brand new intelligence department, he's created the largest socialist program in the world with our grand adventure in Iraq. Obama's universal health care plan could be paid for ten fold with just the money we've already spent on Iraq. So I do disagree that Obama doesn't understand government's capability as much as Bush, or that Obama has too much faith in government. There is no one who has done more to put faith in government than George Bush, DHS proves that.

I understand you're not accusing Obama of socialism, and trust me I never thought you were. I'm just saying if Republicans were so against socialism they wouldn't still support George Bush.

Re: Stark Differences

thefold-Chris — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:32:35 -0000

I think Newt got off track when his first item of business was to setup a committee to investigate the president for a land deal that went sour 12 years prior. Newt and the gang might have talked a big game about small government and fiscal responsibility before getting elected but there is no substance to prove they did any such thing after November 1994. He got off track really fast in my book. They were consumed with impeaching Clinton and it cost him his own career. Though I do agree with you that I'm more skeptical of government solving our problems. I fall off the wagon, though, when I hear Republicans talking about how Democrats are the only ones proposing expanding government, cause it's just not true. Repubs have not one example to point to when suggesting they will shrink government and control spending.

I'm open to changing the definition of socialism to being more than just expanding government. Because like you say, it's more than that; it's actually the control of the means of production, again like you say we aren't no where near that, yet. The difference being Republicans do indeed label Democrats as socialist any time they mention expanding a program.

Sean Hannity does it constantly. Tom Delay called Obama a socialist just a month or so ago. O'Reilly does the same thing all day long. Plus there has already been two op-ed's calling Obama a socialist/communist. It's a routine argument on the right to label Democrats as socialists. I think it's a failure of Democrats and the left to not hit right back when Republicans do that because there is tons of evidence to suggest Republicans have a very poor record at alleviating our socialist dependency on government. That's probably why I'm constantly hammering on that theme.

Who are these mythical Republicans you keep talking about who blindly support everything George W. Bush does? I'm not sure I understand that question. There are plenty of Repubs who still support Bush. It's really all the support he has left. I don't think there's a myth surrounding these people. Yes it's warrior tough guy Jonah and the bunch at NRO, FNC and the listeners of the drug addict. Are they true conservatives? Probably not. But that doesn't stop them from calling themselves conservative. I'm not accusing anyone, it's a fact that there are still 25% or so of Americans who still support the failed presidency of George Bush. I'm surprised it's that high really.

Obama's faith in government is a bit much for me too. But his faith in government is still smaller than Bush's faith in government. All of Obama's government expansion programs could fit snuggley into just one of Bush's, DHS. Obviously Republicans have much more faith in government than Barack Obama does.

It does kind of ruin it to end on disagreement ;)

Re: Stark Differences

thefold-Chris — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:37:10 -0000

Try it now, it should be there. Thanks for letting me know.

Re: Paris Responds

thefold-Chris — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:00:24 -0000

He's leading in two polls and trailing in all the others I've seen. But even the two he's leading in, it's within the margin of error, so I wouldn't call that much of a lead. I hope McCain doesn't break a hip or his campaigns over.

Re: Playbook 101

thefold-Chris — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:01:56 -0000

Hope for the GOP is stay the course. In their world there's absolutely nothing wrong with the last 8 years of failed government.

Re: Correcting the GOP

thefold-Chris — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:04:35 -0000

I'll grant you Bush may appear better in historical context than what he does now, but he's no Truman. Tell me again Kent, what color is the sky in your world?

Re: Fox Hosts Circle Jerk on House Floor

thefold-Chris — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:18:49 -0000

We've been through this so many times. The budget which was balanced and created four consecutive surpluses was not the work of the GOP. It was the work of the president, for the president is responsible for the budget. It is the president's responsibility to submit the budget to Congress. From there Congress will do their math to it and add their earmarks. Once it's passed it goes back to the president for his signature. Clinton vetoed the 1995 budget twice. He didn't sign it until the Republicans quit their tax and spend ways. After Clinton left office the Republican House was given George W. Bush. Not one time did Bush veto a single spending bill. With a big government president in power, a tax and spend Congress had no troubles running up the largest deficit in American history.

Believe what you want Kent. Republicans are not fiscal conservatives.

The Democratic point of view is not aired on the other channels like you suggest. However, reality does have a liberal bias.

I'm glad you admit Fox is a biased Republican talking head. Your comment is classic.