Aint ya'll proud?????

[O Really]

Hey Super-S, here's a question for you. You (collectively and personally) have trashed everything Obama has done since before he took office. Republicans have had as their top priority to monkey up every part of his presidency. So why aren't you (collectively) taking credit? And if he's just so incompetent and useless personally, why didn't you just leave him alone? Has the Republican constant attack and obstruction been successful or not? Why isn't any Republican claiming "mission accomplished"?

[Supsalemgr]

I asked a very simple question about a possible split in the dem party. Neither Vrede or O Really even addressed that and went into diversionary diatribes. Are you guys not concerned at all that the negativity about Obama is affecting other dems for 2014?

[Supsalemgr]

We both challenged the premise of your question - "far leftists" - and I challenged you to back it up. You're diverting from that - as usual the whiny, hypocrisy champ - and from your unfactual claim that we "won't admit" that Obama's numbers are declining despite the fact that we've all admitted it throughout this thread. Why are you incapable of honesty, and of accountability when called out?

I'd be more worried if I didn't have faith that, thanks to the counterproductive gerrymandering and Citizens United, the GOP will largely run candidates too wingnutty to win. That said, I've always had faith in the ability of the Dems to self-destruct. You're preaching to the choir.

I am sorry I hurt your feelings by referring to the Obama wing of the dem party far leftists. Can we move past that and just answer the question if the moderate wing of the party will separate themselves from the Obama wing? Why is this so hard?

[O Really]

I am sorry I hurt your feelings by referring to the Obama wing of the dem party far leftists. Can we move past that and just answer the question if the moderate wing of the party will separate themselves from the Obama wing? Why is this so hard?

It's hard because it makes a false assumption as a basis. Whether Obama "is" a leftist or Kenyan or Muslim or Zombie, he has governed largely from the middle. In fact, that's what got us "ObamaCare" instead of a real national insurance program. There is no Obama initiative that isn't pretty much mainstream, and that if anybody else had set forth would have been so disparaged. For example, would you expect Dems to run against having gotten (mostly) out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Would you expect Dems to say the economy isn't better than when Obama took office? (whether it's because of him or in spite of him doesn't really matter at this point). "ObamaCare" is the only actually wedge issue you guys have, and it's not going away. Exactly what is it you would like to see Dems separating themselves from?

[rstrong]

I realize some of you all won't admit it, but your boy's approval ratings are in the tank.
[...]
Now the question. Will the sane portion of the dem party split with the far leftists who are in power now for self preservation?

Obama has indeed lost a lot of support on the left, but mostly because his policies have been those of a moderate Republican. Even ObamaCare is best described as 15 years of Republican health care policy up until the moment Obama adopted it. The bank bailouts, auto industry bail-outs and TARP were all Republican policy, in progress before Obama took office.

I've asked Republicans here and on the old board this question before, and never really gotten an answer. Answering it would help you make your point:

What Obama policies do you consider non-sane and far-leftist, that were not also Republican policies?

[Supsalemgr]

Thank you Strong and O Really for a reply. It is obvious you believe Obama's polices are not leftists in nature. So should I think the people in the dem party who are trying to distant themselves from Obama do not feel his policies are liberal enough. Therefore, their separation will be to run further to the left in the 2014 campaigns?

[O Really]

Thank you Strong and O Really for a reply. It is obvious you believe Obama's polices are not leftists in nature. So should I think the people in the dem party who are trying to distant themselves from Obama do not feel his policies are liberal enough. Therefore, their separation will be to run further to the left in the 2014 campaigns?

Without knowing which Dems you are referring to, you'd want to remember that different people campaign on - or away from - different issues. There probably aren't many in office who would lambaste Obama - as part of their campaign - for not being liberal enough. For one thing "liberal" is a term used almost exclusively by the right wing after having spent years turning it into four letters. There are quite a few voters, however, who think he's rolled over too far to right of center. But let's talk about candidates. After years of negative propaganda, coupled with an inexcusably bad website roll-out, "ObamaCare" doesn't have a majority favorable rating. So there will be a lot of Dems that won't go out on the stump using their participation in ObamaCare as the main reason to vote for them. But other than that, there aren't many reasons to run on a platform of "I'm not Obama." If you think there are, let's hear them.

[rstrong]

What Obama policies do you consider non-sane and far-leftist, that were not also Republican policies?

Thank you Strong and O Really for a reply. It is obvious you believe Obama's polices are not leftists in nature.

One more time: What Obama policies do you consider non-sane and far-leftist, that were not also Republican policies?

So should I think the people in the dem party who are trying to distant themselves from Obama do not feel his policies are liberal enough. Therefore, their separation will be to run further to the left in the 2014 campaigns?

It's impossible to say until you see the candidates and their policies. The Dems could run another pragmatist, another candidate with '90s moderate Republican policies, keeping the Republicans crowded into the extreme right. And ensuring once again that any moderate Republican who espouses traditional Republican or conservative values gets declared a RINO or traitor by the Tea Party.

[rstrong]

The current frontrunner is Hillary, arguably a bit more con than Obama, but that has nothing to do with her being the frontrunner and she sure won't be running against liberalism in the primaries. Rather, she's in the lead because of, in no particular order - name recognition, being a woman, residual fondness for Bill, access to big money, relevant experience and demonstrated competence. If she has a serious challenger it's likely to be a candidate like Elizabeth Warren that will decry the Obama/Hillary "wing" as being too moderate. No one forgets that it worked for Obama in 2008.

I think the chances that Hillary will be the Democrat candidate in 2016 are less than 50-50. Remember, even in late in the primaries for 2008, people were saying that the primaries were a sham and that everyone KNEW that the election would be Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani.

As always - it'll be a "Washington Outsider" bringing "change" to Washington. (Of course, even Washington lobbyist, former Congressman and ultimate Washington insider Newt Gingrich made the "Washington Outsider" claim in 2012.)

[O Really]

Rudy Giuliani - man, it seems like so long ago that Republicans would have ever even considered him one of their own, much less have him as a front runner.

"Throughout most of 2007 he was the leader in most nationwide opinion polling among Republicans. Original front-runner Senator John McCain had faded, and most polls showed Giuliani to have more support than any of the other declared Republican candidates, with only former Senator Fred Thompson and former Governor Mitt Romney showing greater support in some per-state Republican polls. On November 7, 2007, Giuliani's campaign received an endorsement from evangelist, Christian Broadcasting Network founder, and past presidential candidate Pat Robertson. This was viewed by political observers as a possibly key development in the race, as it gave credence that evangelicals and other social conservatives could support Giuliani despite some of his positions on social issues such as abortion and gay rights." (Wikipedia)

[Supsalemgr]

I appreciate everyone's comments, even Vrede's. O Really and Strong gave some good comments and Vrede did his normal twist having the audacity to ask questions without answering the question of the topic. I agree with you all that Hillary is a long shot. She is considered moderate by most dems and many of them, like Vrede, are drooling over Elizabeth Warren. Also, even Bubba couldn't help her overcome the total mismanagement of her campaign on 2008. I think Warren is a viable for the 2016 nomination as she fits the mold of a candidate that very little is known about her other than folks who realize she is very liberal.

I will not enumerate all the things Obama has done that irritates many voters and you folks would disagree with each and everyone of those anyway. Let's just say his policies will hopefully energize his opponents and they will turnout in 2014 just as they did in 2010. I am now gone from this thread.

I hope all have a good Thanksgiving.

[O Really]

You have a good Thanksgiving, too, Super-S. But when you get back, consider - we weren't talking about Obama "irritating" voters. That wouldn't matter since he's not running. I asked what - other than ObamaCare 24/7 has Obama done that Dems would feel compelled to run from? Rstrong asked, "What Obama policies do you consider non-sane and far-leftist, that were not also Republican policies?" Disagreement is at the heart of debate, and true, we might not agree with your list. But let's have some detail of what you think.

[neoplacebo]

Far leftist? Far out. What the hell? Did I miss some "far leftist" official government activity? Was Abbie Hoffman resurrected and put in charge of random different agencies for short periods of time?

[rstrong]

Will the sane portion of the dem party split with the far leftists who are in power now for self preservation?

What Obama policies do you consider non-sane and far-leftist, that were not also Republican policies?

Thank you Strong and O Really for a reply. It is obvious you believe Obama's polices are not leftists in nature.

One more time: What Obama policies do you consider non-sane and far-leftist, that were not also Republican policies?

I am now gone from this thread.

Of course, no-one expected you to be capable of answering the question this time either.

Your opposition to Obama is based entirely on mythology and wingnuttery from the likes of Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. You mindlessly believe in that mythology and wingnuttery, set down before Obama was sworn in, even though none of it turned out to be true.

The most fiscally conservative President in 45 years was Bill Clinton. His Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, through the implementation of spending restraints, mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years. This was in a Democrat-controlled Congress - not a single Republican voted for it. He did it; he succeeded in bringing in the first balanced federal budget since 1969. (Yes, he really did, whether you count Social Security or not.) Reagan, Bush I and Bush II on the other hand all spent like drunken sailors.

Needless to say the big smear the Republicans constantly used against Clinton was that he was a "tax and spend Liberal" who was going to bankrupt the country. It was repeated all through both his elections, and there are STILL Republicans who believe it. No doubt you're one of them.

After almost five years of Obama acting like a moderate Republican, demonstrably to the right of Reagan, sticking to Republican economic, military, domestic and foreign policy, your claims that Obama is a "far-leftist" liberal is far more insulting to your intelligence than any insult anyone here could come up with.

[O Really]

The only major candidate I know of who is, is proud to be, and presents himself as a "liberal" is Bill de Blasio, who of course was trounced by the upswell of rightwingism supporting the teapartier. Oh wait.

[Roland Deschain]

Speaking of Colorado, apparently visiting hunters could give a ratzass about the state's changed gun laws. Boycott busts big...
http://money.msn.com/business-news/arti ... d=17141451

Well, hell, I could have told ya'll that would not fly...

You predicted the opposite, Gun Legislation page 39:

...I wondered what might happen after Colorado passed their new law and it appears my suspicions may turn out to be correct. It may seem inconsequential to a lot of folks but the economic impact to many of the smaller towns and outfitters will be huge if this takes hold. I know a couple of folks from here in NC that have applied for tags in Wyoming this year after decades of hunting Colorado.

Well, hell, Mad Roland screws up, again. I could have told ya'll that he would. Run away, Roland Deschain, run away.

For an accurate prediction we find on the same page:

Misleading? I lived out West for 30 years and I know what instate hunters think of out of state hunters. CO has a huge tourist economy, the impact will likely be negligible except for isolated businesses. You folks are free to snit all you want, most Coloradans won't miss you a bit...

If anything, I gave you gunhuggers too much credit. There's been no negative impact.

Do you just spend all day digging through posts trying to find anything that you think might support your argument? Whoever this "mad american" is seems to have the right idea about the impacts but it never came to pass. The preference point system in CO for nonresidents all but guarantees out of state hunters will at least keep trying.

[O Really]

The preference point system in CO for nonresidents all but guarantees out of state hunters will at least keep trying.

You are correct, Roland.
And all the Chicken Littles knew or should have known that when they were screaming that the minor changes in the gun laws would result in hunting revenue Armageddon. But when did accuracy ever matter to the NRA?

[Roland Deschain]

The preference point system in CO for nonresidents all but guarantees out of state hunters will at least keep trying.

You are correct, Roland.
And all the Chicken Littles knew or should have known that when they were screaming that the minor changes in the gun laws would result in hunting revenue Armageddon. But when did accuracy ever matter to the NRA?

Colorado is well on it's way to destroying hunting revenue from out of state hunters by pricing them out and the 65/35 limited split. Your article points out the huge difference in costs of a resident license vs a nonresident license. Then, for any license that is obtained through the draw 65% of those are reserved for residents and only 35% for nonresidents. Costs are going to do far more to hurt CO's hunting revenue than gun law changes.

[Roland Deschain]

Do you just spend all day digging through posts trying to find anything that you think might support your argument?

No, I have a good memory and all I had to do was search "Colorado" here. It was on the first page. You're too easy and not worth more effort than that.

Whoever this "mad american" is

You admitted to being one and the same back when you were using the gray scroll below. Did you forget? It was your being nascarfan88 that we ended up having doubts about.

seems to have the right idea about the impacts but it never came to pass.

Wouldn't that be the wrong idea about the impacts?

The preference point system in CO for nonresidents all but guarantees out of state hunters will at least keep trying.

Yep, the gunhugger boycott failed miserably.

Seems your alternate realities are beginning to spill over to true reality all to easily. I remember you and a few more or your buddies trying to unsuccessfully prove that I was this "mad american" but now just as then....you are wrong. For someone who is not worth much effort you sure seem to spend a lot of time obsessing about me. Why is that?

[Roland Deschain]

Same IP, interests, syntax, gullibility and lack of honesty or accountability but maybe you always were and remain too CS to admit it. I can't find what I thought I remembered.

What obsessing, silly? You made a dumb prediction and are now laughably claiming that you always knew it was dumb.

Now, about the lie in your OP?

Again, your delusions may seem as the truth to you but that does not make it so. Maybe your delusions can explain to you why I, as "mad american" would make a statement in support of a boycott on March 28th knowing I would be applying for a nonresident Colorado elk tag less than two weeks from that date.

Now about democrat's plummeting poll numbers?