Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Political talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/)
-   -   Why does politics have to be different from real life? (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/why-does-politics-have-different-real-life-144283/)

Guest 02-20-2015 04:51 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016514)
Republicans wanted to defeat Obama's policy agenda because it was obvious it was in direct opposition to their beliefs. Politicians have constituents to answer to.

And what is Obama going to do now? He's going to Veto everything passed by the Senate because it won't be what he believes in.

That's the way the framers set up the constitution. Next time try to win a veto proof majority.

Guest 02-20-2015 06:06 PM

When Obama took the office the country was in terrible shape. A leader would have been able to ask everyone to sacrifice, pull the vast majority together, and get us going in right direction. Difficult times bring out real leaders and this President missed an opportunity. Instead we got out of a terrible situation by driving the next generation so far into crippling debt that their futures are very much in jeopardy. Now everyone is back to "what can polititians do for me", and we are all locked and loaded. Until we have another crisis it will be business as usual, but I don't think we will be waiting too long.

Guest 02-20-2015 07:01 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016614)
When Obama took the office the country was in terrible shape. A leader would have been able to ask everyone to sacrifice, pull the vast majority together, and get us going in right direction. Difficult times bring out real leaders and this President missed an opportunity. Instead we got out of a terrible situation by driving the next generation so far into crippling debt that their futures are very much in jeopardy. Now everyone is back to "what can polititians do for me", and we are all locked and loaded. Until we have another crisis it will be business as usual, but I don't think we will be waiting too long.


Republicans are so upset that it is taking President Obama so long to fix all the problems he inherited from them; two wars, an economy in meltdown, 10% unemployment, Dow Industrials below 7000, an auto industry going bust, massive debt, and on and on. Come on Obama, what's taking you so long?

The economy is going too well now, so republicans want to get back in control to wreck it again. Best regards.

Guest 02-20-2015 07:39 PM

When Harry Reid was the senate guardian Obama did not have to threaten to veto anything because Harry would not let anything get to the senate floor let alone to Obama.

Guest 02-20-2015 09:30 PM

Sorry to be so cold and 'blah-se' about the thread...but must relate that when I saw the title of the thread I began to wonder which of our 'guests' is clever enough to come up with a 'game' of Fantasy Government like they play Fantasy Football!

Guest 02-20-2015 10:07 PM

It's not "why does" politics....
 
[QUOTE=Guest;1016262]After wring most of the following in another thread, it just nagged me to the point that I did not want my thoughts buried in a maybe not so well titled thread. Hence the following:

I believe this party affiliation "thing" is being carried to a fault. Some posts give the impression that left or right, conservative or liberal and democrats or republicans are different species from different planets that could in no way understand what the other wants or needs.

How about approaching an issue the old fashioned way? How about we figure out what we AMERICANS want or need?

Under the primise usually seen in a political environment when there is a community need we should be dividing the room into democrats and republicans and God help us if there is a smattering of other than those two.
Now just how effective would that be?

Sounds stupid right?

It's "why do politics"....

Guest 02-20-2015 11:18 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016341)
The Republicans’ Plan for the New President | Inside Obama?s Presidency | FRONTLINE | PBS


A group of republicans, organized by Frank Luntz, met on the night of President Obama's first inauguration to determine how they could undermine everything the new president tried to do.

The attendees included Senators Jim DeMint, John Kyle, Tom Koburn, and Congressmen Eric Kantor, Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Ryan, and many others.

This meeting has been well documented and a film about it "Inside Obama's Presidency" was made.


That is...well it is just how things work. It is... Party Politics. A lot like a sales campaign. Don't think for one skinny second that if the Republicans had won the election, there wouldn't have been meetings and planning on the part of the Democrats documented, or undocumented. To think otherwise is naïve..

Guest 02-21-2015 08:24 AM

Just my humble opinion - some people do not understand the meaning of "united we stand, divided we fall". Instead, they would rather wallow in their ideology, continually allowing common sense to fly out the window.

Guest 02-21-2015 09:06 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016649)
Republicans are so upset that it is taking President Obama so long to fix all the problems he inherited from them; two wars, an economy in meltdown, 10% unemployment, Dow Industrials below 7000, an auto industry going bust, massive debt, and on and on. Come on Obama, what's taking you so long?

The economy is going too well now, so republicans want to get back in control to wreck it again. Best regards.

My point exactly, it is better but not because we did the right things but because we dumped the whole damn mess onto our grand-children. Rep/Dem has nothing to do with it, neither party could lean hungry wolves to fresh meat.

Guest 02-21-2015 09:54 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016557)
That's the way the framers set up the constitution. Next time try to win a veto proof majority.

No thanks ... we'll just change the filibuster rule to a simple majority vote like Harry Reid did

Guest 02-21-2015 10:01 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016382)
The president has explained over and over, "this is not a religious war". Calling ISSL radical Islam plays right into their hands. They want it to be a religious war, east against west. Obama is correct when he says this is a gang of thugs, using Islam in their battle. Personal regards.

First off my personal regards to you as well 😄

I will explain why your position, and that of POTUS, is not only wrong but dangerously so. To keep this all straight, I’ll number my points since my response will be comprehensive, but also lengthy.

1. To argue ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is like saying Nazis had nothing to do with nationalism or socialism. One truly has to stand on their head to assert either point.

2. ISIS is practicing Islam in its purest and most original form--think of it as “Islam Ver 1.0” as created by Muhammad in the 6th century. Muhammad had epilepsy (ie source of his “visions”) and was a psychopathic killer who used blood, sword and treasure to spread his “religion” at an amazing rate. He also employed mass rape and other depredations. An analogy would be Charles Manson but with an army. Muhammad was brilliant in concocting an imperial religion which sets up a worldwide “us vs them” dynamic where war continues, and thus peace is not attained until all submit to Islam. He was even more brilliant in finding a way to motivate illiterate young men to die in vast numbers for his cause. The formula is foolproof and still works today … offer young men the wet dream of potentially unlimited sex (ie 72 virgins), a chance for bloody fighting and violence but rationalized as ‘holy’, and a way for the smarter ones to become rich by looting and appropriating the property of the vanquished (especially the Jews).

3. Islam, after its rapid spread, matured and morphed into the great civilization of the Middle Ages where science and learning flourished and the moral teachings of Muhammad overrode the pure mayhem and more warlike aspects—ie a good thing to be sure. Basically, Muslims got tired of all the bloodshed and fighting, and just wanted to enjoy life. For example, Islam proved to be the caretaker of ancient (Greek/roman) knowledge which proved crucial for the European Renaissance. Islam was steadily eclipsed by a technologically superior Europe starting around 1600 and any threat receded further. But, even today, many Islamic countries with non-radical or secular leadership are still not a threat to the West. (i.e. Jordan, Indonesia, Egypt etc.). Of the 1.5 billion Muslims, I’d guesstimate 80-90% are genuinely peaceful.

4. However, 10-20% are “Radical” and pose over time an existential threat to the West. That’s what, maybe up to 100 million Muslim radicals worldwide? 50 million? Whatever the number, it’s a LOT no matter how you slice it. This is important because Radical Islam ultimately wishes to defeat and destroy the West by forcing it, either internally or externally, to submit to Islam in accordance with Muhammad’s original demented vision. You may think / hope (pray?) it’s not “religious” but guess what … for the bad guys it definitely is.

5. People have said we just need to wait for Islam to have its “Reformation.” I think the Islamic Reformation is already underway but, unfortunately, it’s not what we were hoping for ie moderation. It’s going the other direction, and that’s what we saw with Bin Laden and now al Baghdadi and ISIS. If you recall, in Christian history, the Reformation scholars went BACK to the original documents … Bible etc). Al Baghdadi’s, the head of ISIS, is an Islamic scholar (Ph.D.) and knows his stuff and doing the same thing … going BACK to the “original” Koran which, in modern day times, would be described as Muhammad’s blog, at least in part, of rationalizations for his psychopathic behavior. Baghdadi is thus preaching pure, unadulterated Islam Ver 1.0 and adding to the terror factor …photos of beheadings, people being. burned alive, etc. Again, you and Obama may not think it’s a religious war, but the reality is … ISIS DOES, and is operating on that basis.

6. So here’s the reality we all face—we are in a high stakes and long term religious war with Radical Islam make no mistake, and whether we like it or not. We can choose to ignore it, as Obama is currently doing, but guess what … they will not ignore us. You either fight and destroy it, or in your case, think about getting fitted for a burka at some point, assuming you still have a head to put it on.

7. There would not be an ISIS today had George Bush not gone into Iraq. But, we were there and had a hard won victory which Barack Obama literally threw away in 2011 when he pulled our troops out prematurely, and primarily for his political gain. That vacuum led directly to the formation of ISIS. His strategic bungling since then has only made it worse. Today, ISIS controls a territory in size roughly equivalent to the United Kingdom. Should ISIS continue to expand and ultimately prevail in the Middle East, Africa and Southern Europe, history will view Obama as the Chamberlain of the early 21st Century. This is literally bonafide grounds for impeachment … not that it will ever happen.

8. Finally, read the article by Grame Wood in The Atlantic. He makes points similar to what I’ve discussed above. What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic Here are two excerpts from his artricle: “The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse …” and also “In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” … statement(s) that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.”

Guest 02-21-2015 10:02 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016479)
No the thread is not flawed.
The thread is about how to try to not do nothing more than rehash who did what to whom and when and what did they say when they did it. And then for each side to do their best (and worst) to make their point or justify their position or the parties position or personal opinion.

This thread was to highlight exactly the tangent it has taken. It has gone from what would it take to communicate better. Not continue to do verbal battle over the past. And not to have someone get high up on the pedestal and blow the trumpet for their guy or party.

No that is not what the thread is all about. Or some do not know the difference between a thread....the original post and subject matter VS a post within the thread.

I know, I will get scolded for not allowing we cannot go forward until we sort out history. Really. Some of us will be well down the road of progress while some pursue a win position on yesterdays news.

Yes it is much easier to do that, I fully understand that as well.

Dear guest: Who's history? the liberal media has fashioned many untruths to be journalistic fact. They ignore the bad and hype up their liberal ideology . If you believe the liberal media machine there were no scandals in this Administration the problems Obama created are actually left over from Bush. Leading from behind is just so ingenious Obamacare saved the orld and the trillions upon trillions spent by him benefited middle class nd the poor and only penalized the 1%...what a guy. the liberal pose him as robin Hood but in actuality he is the Sheriff of Notingham

Guest 02-21-2015 10:15 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016557)
That's the way the framers set up the constitution. Next time try to win a veto proof majority.

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016967)
No thanks ... we'll just change the filibuster rule to a simple majority vote like Harry Reid did


Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of congress, has nothing whatsoever to do with the filibuster rule.

Guest 02-21-2015 10:37 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1016974)
First off my personal regards to you as well 😄

I will explain why your position, and that of POTUS, is not only wrong but dangerously so. To keep this all straight, I’ll number my points since my response will be comprehensive, but also lengthy.

1. To argue ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is like saying Nazis had nothing to do with nationalism or socialism. One truly has to stand on their head to assert either point.

2. ISIS is practicing Islam in its purest and most original form--think of it as “Islam Ver 1.0” as created by Muhammad in the 6th century. Muhammad had epilepsy (ie source of his “visions”) and was a psychopathic killer who used blood, sword and treasure to spread his “religion” at an amazing rate. He also employed mass rape and other depredations. An analogy would be Charles Manson but with an army. Muhammad was brilliant in concocting an imperial religion which sets up a worldwide “us vs them” dynamic where war continues, and thus peace is not attained until all submit to Islam. He was even more brilliant in finding a way to motivate illiterate young men to die in vast numbers for his cause. The formula is foolproof and still works today … offer young men the wet dream of potentially unlimited sex (ie 72 virgins), a chance for bloody fighting and violence but rationalized as ‘holy’, and a way for the smarter ones to become rich by looting and appropriating the property of the vanquished (especially the Jews).

3. Islam, after its rapid spread, matured and morphed into the great civilization of the Middle Ages where science and learning flourished and the moral teachings of Muhammad overrode the pure mayhem and more warlike aspects—ie a good thing to be sure. Basically, Muslims got tired of all the bloodshed and fighting, and just wanted to enjoy life. For example, Islam proved to be the caretaker of ancient (Greek/roman) knowledge which proved crucial for the European Renaissance. Islam was steadily eclipsed by a technologically superior Europe starting around 1600 and any threat receded further. But, even today, many Islamic countries with non-radical or secular leadership are still not a threat to the West. (i.e. Jordan, Indonesia, Egypt etc.). Of the 1.5 billion Muslims, I’d guesstimate 80-90% are genuinely peaceful.

4. However, 10-20% are “Radical” and pose over time an existential threat to the West. That’s what, maybe up to 100 million Muslim radicals worldwide? 50 million? Whatever the number, it’s a LOT no matter how you slice it. This is important because Radical Islam ultimately wishes to defeat and destroy the West by forcing it, either internally or externally, to submit to Islam in accordance with Muhammad’s original demented vision. You may think / hope (pray?) it’s not “religious” but guess what … for the bad guys it definitely is.

5. People have said we just need to wait for Islam to have its “Reformation.” I think the Islamic Reformation is already underway but, unfortunately, it’s not what we were hoping for ie moderation. It’s going the other direction, and that’s what we saw with Bin Laden and now al Baghdadi and ISIS. If you recall, in Christian history, the Reformation scholars went BACK to the original documents … Bible etc). Al Baghdadi’s, the head of ISIS, is an Islamic scholar (Ph.D.) and knows his stuff and doing the same thing … going BACK to the “original” Koran which, in modern day times, would be described as Muhammad’s blog, at least in part, of rationalizations for his psychopathic behavior. Baghdadi is thus preaching pure, unadulterated Islam Ver 1.0 and adding to the terror factor …photos of beheadings, people being. burned alive, etc. Again, you and Obama may not think it’s a religious war, but the reality is … ISIS DOES, and is operating on that basis.

6. So here’s the reality we all face—we are in a high stakes and long term religious war with Radical Islam make no mistake, and whether we like it or not. We can choose to ignore it, as Obama is currently doing, but guess what … they will not ignore us. You either fight and destroy it, or in your case, think about getting fitted for a burka at some point, assuming you still have a head to put it on.

7. There would not be an ISIS today had George Bush not gone into Iraq. But, we were there and had a hard won victory which Barack Obama literally threw away in 2011 when he pulled our troops out prematurely, and primarily for his political gain. That vacuum led directly to the formation of ISIS. His strategic bungling since then has only made it worse. Today, ISIS controls a territory in size roughly equivalent to the United Kingdom. Should ISIS continue to expand and ultimately prevail in the Middle East, Africa and Southern Europe, history will view Obama as the Chamberlain of the early 21st Century. This is literally bonafide grounds for impeachment … not that it will ever happen.

8. Finally, read the article by Grame Wood in The Atlantic. He makes points similar to what I’ve discussed above. What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic Here are two excerpts from his artricle: “The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse …” and also “In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” … statement(s) that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.”

FANTASTIC post!

That was excellent, concise, and well written. It is astounding Obama refuses to acknowledge reality. He portrays ISIS as a group of unemployed, bored juvenile hooligans playing marbles in an alley and if we could just provide them job training and financing so they could start a business they'd straighten up. :1rotfl:

Guest 02-21-2015 01:42 PM

the only change I would make to the above post is that Obama IS NOT ignoring thre Islamic issue. He is definitely FACILITATING the Islamic ideology.

His actions or more so his lack of actions are daily testimony to it.

Why else would he continue to lecture us about the meruts of Islamic ideology.
What he does ignore is the fact that the Islamic terrorists are in fact Islamic. He will always present them in a generic fashion.

He does not know how to be neutral about race...proven day after day.

He certainly is not neutral about anything Islamic (proactive would be the word of choice).

What he really is is a good speech READER and promise maker. The speeches are written for him. And the promises? One can only conclude he reall believes that having addressed the issue with words....HE HAS ADDRESSED the issue.

No continuity. No responsibility. No measurability. No conscience.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.