patrick.net

I see the time has come after many years to leave Patrick.net. I am finding that too many online forum threads now start off on a tangible subject then spin off into complete utter lunacy. I have no time for it. I wish you all well in your life. Thank you for having me here.

The Republican party has more in common with the Taliban in Afghanistan than a political party in a modern democracy.

Bellingham Bob says

tatupu70 says

Compared to Republicans, they are.

Debt to GDP:

1977-10-01 0.34

1981-10-01 0.32 (Carter reduced 6%)

1993-07-01 0.66 (Reagan/Bush increased 106%)

2001-07-01 0.56 (Clinton reduced 18%)

2009-07-01 0.86 (Bush increased 35%)

2011-04-01 0.96 (Obama increase thus far 11%)

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

Interesting data here. How many Americans are aware of this?

The debt to GDP can be reduced. I think Bellingham Bob had produced a very easy way to do this that I seen in a previous post.

I am probably jumping off the Republican party. We are a country that has modernized with a shrinking labor force. Hopefully, there is some change in the future. I really hate saying this, but we will eventually head towards the Canadian/European model.

Here is another puzzling question. The republican party is injected and really cares about the christian/religous part of America. They don't really follow the teachings of Jesus in the policies however. How can you be a man or woman who follows those teachings but is willing to cut programs that hurt the poor?

The choices offered by the GOP field of presidential candidates all are better than Obama.

How extreme any of them seem is a function of one's own viewpoint and perspective. If one considers the number of people who call themselves 'Christian' in the nation today, or the historical heritage of our nation, one can hardly call these candidates or their views extreme, in fact, one could much more easily call the policies contrary to their views extreme and radical. One example would be the welfare state (whether the welfare be for individuals or corporations), which has taken root in the minds of too many as an acceptable principle. That idea is intolerable to the founding principles.

I have been a 'Republican' since I made the mistake, at a much younger age, of voting for Jimmy Carter. Years back I realized that the Republican Party was using the funds I gave it to support candidates whose positions, on certain issues, were in opposition to my own. This is similar to what forced unionism and the US tax system does, however, in this case, I had an alternative. I no longer give to parties or PACs that do not stand steadfast and true to my personal positions. This is the answer to your question about giving to the Republican Party. I feel strongly that the Republican Party powers that be are not principled and that their first concern is the perpetuation of their power and the party that affords them this power. This is why the party supports RINOs (Mitt Romney and Olympia Snowe, et. al.) and politicians rather than principled candidates (statesmen).

I do not see the government as my 'savior'. Instead I see it as a tool being used by the unprincipled to achieve their own ends. It could and should be used to protect our freedoms. This is a point I differ wherein I differ from Ron Paul. An example would be Iran and the tyranny and ideology and terrorism it promotes. I believe it is my duty to report a criminal and help to end the crimes. The government of Iran is an international criminal promoting terrorism and the genocide of Jews and anyone not of their ideological bent (Shite Islam). If I had been of voting age in the 1930's I would have opposed isolationism and advocated stopping Hitler and the Nazis and Facists of Italy and Japan while they were still small and relatively easy to deal with. Ron Paul would have been an advocate of the isolationist policies that helped these butchers of mankind grow. Thus I do not support this aspect of Paul's platform. Although I do stridently advocate a return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The government has been, in times past, and is sometimes at present used to protect and preserve our freedoms. However, the recent trend has been to usurp freedoms from the people and the states.

Many Americans do not see the GOP candidates as extreme. The MSM (Main Stream Media) likes to paint them as extreme, but the positions represented by many of the candidates have been around for some time.

Many Americans do not feel that the faith of these candidates is inappropriate. Many great statesmen of the past in this country and other countries acted upon their beliefs in public life. William Wilberforce for example was instrumental in the cessation of slavery in England... although the abolition was a huge loss in economic terms and I am sure he and others of his ilk were labeled extremists. The abolitionists were motivated by the principle that God created all men equal and that people of non-white skin were created in the image of God just like those with light skin. They believed slavery was wrong regardless of the race of the person. I hold to these same principles.

My point is this... the bigotry and prejudice engendered against those who have faith by those who don't is unwarranted and unjustified. It is wrong. The person of Christian faith who has a mature understanding of that faith is told to "love his neighbor as himself"... just consider what this means. Never cheat or deceive or endanger your neighbor... who is his neighbor? Everyman. What about enemies? The Christian is told to love his enemies. Does that mean he is not to defend against the evil a person might do.... No it means that a Christian should stand against evil carry out justice without malice or hatred of the individual.

The truth is... the problems we have encountered are caused by acting out on ideas contrary to the teachings of Christianity. That means believing other things. The Real Estate debacle was caused by greed and avaricious deceit. The propping up of insolvent banks and entities is deceit and robbery because it isn't right to take from taxpayers to sustain the skulduggery of liars and thieves.

There are a few of the Presidential candidates I like less than others... I prefer the No Compromise ilk as I had to take the same position in my financial life to avoid getting sucked into the lie that real estate always goes up and you better get in now or you'll never be able to get in. I remember well the clarion siren call of the crowd and being labeled a nut because I refused to enter into debt I could not repay. I refused the get rich and retire lie. Anyway, I like candidates who say NO to raising the debt ceiling. I like candidates who say YES to a Balanced Budget and will not accept compromise. I like candidates who say get off welfare and get a job... I like candidates who say taxation should be fair (the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax). I like candidates who want to end earmarks and privileges for special interests and groups. I like candidates who think govt should be downsized and capped in spending and number of employees. I like candidates who think govt should be limited. I like candidates who want to see jobs moved back to America and sensible realistic environmental regulations. I like candidates who think illegals shouldn't be rewarded for cutting in front of those trying to enter legally. I like candidates who want to meter immigration so that all current Americans and those immigrating to become Americans can enjoy a good job and support themselves economically. I advocate immigration of those being oppressed.

I like the idea of working for the rest of my days and finding work to do that helps produce so that others can enjoy the fruit of my labor and I can enjoy the fruit of their labor through the exchange of our 'fruit'. I find a great sense of satisfaction in knowing that when I do my job I help other people.

My favorite candidate right now is Michele Bachmann... why? No compromise on the debt ceiling. No compromise on a Balanced Budget Amendment. Jobs are the priority. She doesn't look at government as the solution. As for the tired mantra of "experience", I look at all that the "experience" of the politicians have in Washington has wrought and I think it is time for a candidate who has experience of greater value... how about someone who pays their taxes and has a business and raised 5 kids and contributed to the lives of 23 foster children. All the economic 'experts' can't seem to figure out that debt is BAD not good.

I am so tired of compromise with economic and social suicide.

As for alienating a racial group the whole concept of categorizing people by race is racist. People are your neighbors from a Christian perspective. They are to be helped as you would want to be helped. I myself do NOT want handouts. I want to earn whatever I receive. The solution is not handouts, but giving those unemployed and those receiving handouts jobs to do.

The candidates running, except for a few, are not sanctioned or even liked by the Republican Party power brokers. They don't want a Bachmann in there. That is why they got Perry to run and that is why he picked the day of the straw poll. They want compromise... they want to continue the growth of government and the extension of its power as that extends their power.

I would like to see the elimination of the GSEs and the Marking to Market of the assets of the banks. If they fail, the banks who did not make those mistakes will use their assets to buy up the distressed assets of the failed banks at true market value.

The problem as I see it is we the people... I know we don't like to hear that we are the problem and I don't mean all of the people are the problem... but enough of the people are the problem that the people voted in Obama and the people rejected the principles of the founding fathers. This republic cannot exist, and our freedoms and prosperity cannot be maintained, by any counterfeit principles. Unless we return to the principles and beliefs of the founders we will cease to exist as the America of the past. We too will go the way of all nations that reject those principles.

I could go on and on but the gist of it is we need to return to our foundations and to the beliefs and principles and faith of our fathers. We need to return it this faith as individuals. If we don't they told us what would happen... read Washington and Lincoln and Franklin and the others and read history... we are not a special case.

Consider the case... we cannot do wrong without consequence.

Rowland says

The person of Christian faith who has a mature understanding of that faith is told to "love his neighbor as himself"... just consider what this means. Never cheat or deceive or endanger your neighbor... who is his neighbor? Everyman. What about enemies? The Christian is told to love his enemies. Does that mean he is not to defend against the evil a person might do.... No it means that a Christian should stand against evil carry out justice without malice or hatred of the individual.

The right wing interprets Jesus on taxes (supposed "historian" Barton interprets Jesus)

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/03/jesus-hates-minimum-wage.html

"jesus had teachings about minimum wage?" Really, at a time when slavery was still common?

Jon Stewart talking to Huckabbee about Barton.
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/jon-stewart-grills-mike-huckabee-on-david-barton-quotes-video-1

Lawrence Odonnell on Rush Limbaughs twisted voiews about Jesus and taxes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42756956#42756956

Moreon Barton.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4366/jesus_hates_taxes%3A_biblical_capitalism_created_fertile_anti-union_soil/

Apparently what the bible says about slavery applies to workers in America today?

Down with unions !!!!

Agree---go visit Maxkeiser.com and see what he says. Its all about savers versus gamblers. What happened to price discovery? It is an attack on sovereignty. The IMF against all countries (Except the few who told them to get out! Iceland and Venezuela. Its also the fed against the people of the USA. They play and we pay.

marcus says

Moreon Barton.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4366/jesus_hates_taxes%3A_biblical_capitalism_created_fertile_anti-union_soil/

Two days after the November 2010 elections, Barton, Newt Gingrich, and Jim Garlow (who runs Gingrich’s Renewing American Leadership group), held a conference call with pastors to celebrate conservative political gains. On the call, Garlow and Barton asserted a biblical underpinning for far-right economic policies: Taxation and deficit spending, they said, amount to theft, a violation of the Ten Commandments. The estate tax, Barton said, is “absolutely condemned” by the Bible as the “most immoral” of taxes. Jesus, he said, had “teachings” condemning the capital gains tax and minimum wage.

I think you made an unintentional pun there.

I wonder what his views on "Jubilee Years", the Shmita, Giving your own coat to the poor, washing their feet, etc. are?

I'm sure his theology is "Biblical Literalism Pick and Choose" at it's very best.

A few months ago, I got a phone call from a polling service gathering perceptions of political parties. I was asked to give three adjectives, and three adjectives only, to describe my views of each party.

For Republicans I used mean-spirited, dishonest, corrupt
For Democrats I used incompetent, cowardly, dishonest

Unfortunately, there are precious few politicians in office these days worth more than a buck and quarter. Anyone remember when statesmen actually existed?

Truthplease,

I dropped out in 2008 for a lot of the same reasons.

GOP was no longer the "big tent" party and became increasingly run by crackpots and zealots.

I got sick and tired of it and left. Welcome to exile!

Vicente says

I got sick and tired of it and left. Welcome to exile!

Okay, that is what I was looking for. So I am definately not the only one who is in exile!

Truthplease says

Okay, that is what I was looking for. So I am definately not the only one who is in exile!

I have to believe that if it weren't for human nature, many more of the real moderate conservatives would have left the party. But our nature is to stick with our team, especially after decades of identifying with them.

My hat is off to you for being able to disregard your past allegiance and to base you're views on objectivity. I'm guessing you're not too old. It would be really tough for someone much over 40 to change political party. Although I'm sure it happens occasionally.

(by the way - I'm not saying the democrats are so much better - money has become far too big a factor for both sides. Talk about wasted and misdirected time and enregy !)

I am 38 years young! I am having a hard time with both parties right now.

"The Republican party has more in common with the Taliban in Afghanistan than a political party in a modern democracy."

What an absurd comment. The Taliban is a group full of religious gun touting homophobes who don't think women should have the right to choose. Republicans on the other hand, are, er, never mind... carry on.

HousingWatcher says

What an absurd comment. The Taliban is a group full of religious gun touting homophobes who don't think women should have the right to choose. Republicans on the other hand, are, er, never mind... carry on.

That sums it up perfectly. That's why I became independent after w was elected. Not that it matters the choice is always bad or worse.

I talked to my wife's grandfather this weekend. He is 94 and says all these bank problems happened in the great depression due to deregulation. He said we always keep making the same mistakes. Just a random thought I just had.

Bellingham Bob says

tatupu70 says

Compared to Republicans, they are.

Debt to GDP:

1977-10-01 0.34

1981-10-01 0.32 (Carter reduced 6%)

1993-07-01 0.66 (Reagan/Bush increased 106%)

2001-07-01 0.56 (Clinton reduced 18%)

2009-07-01 0.86 (Bush increased 35%)

2011-04-01 0.96 (Obama increase thus far 11%)

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

Although I agree with your conclusion that Republicans are worst at dealing with the national debt, I must object to your reasoning.

Let's say a debt is $100. Sally increases the debt by 50%. Then Joe increases the debt by 40%. Sounds like Joe increased the debt less? But let's take a look at the numbers.

$100 Original Debt
$150 Sally increased the debt from $100 to $150 or by $50 (50%)
$210 Joe increased the debt from $150 to $210 or by $60 (40%)

The list of percent increases you give are misleading because the later percentages are based on a greater amount of debt.

A better analysis would be the inflation-adjusted absolute debt increases represented as ratios of a common base such as the minimum positive increase in debt by any presidential term.

The analysis should also include the fact that much, if not most, of the spending in the Obama administration was for items occurred during the Bush administration that were not put on the financial books.

Dan8267 says

The list of percent increases you give are misleading because the later percentages are based on a greater amount of debt.

I agree that this is not a linear thing -- Reagan/Bush 106% was probably less worse than Bush's 35%.

if not most, of the spending in the Obama administration was for items occurred during the Bush administration that were not put on the financial books.

Not sure about that. The increase in gov't spending 2002-2007 was covered by increasing receipts thanks to the bubble economy.

When the bubble economy failed in 2008, receipts fell AND "counter-cyclical" spending increased . . .

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2jL

I don't support the status quo, and never will. I cling on to the belief that we'll finally elect Ron Paul and fix all that is wrong with the nation that gone off the cliff.

Truthplease says

I talked to my wife's grandfather this weekend. He is 94 and says all these bank problems happened in the great depression due to deregulation. He said we always keep making the same mistakes. Just a random thought I just had.

YES INDEED!

The problem is nobody listens to their grands.

OH Gramps, you don't understand our "financial innovation" and how it's the road to riches. You are too old-fashioned and probably senile to understand such things there there just keep quiet now.....

shrekgrinch says

More total bullshit. And you seemed to be turning out to have some hope in that other thread, Dan.

Besides, Obambi is fully on the hook for it no matter how you try to spin the bullshit. His own DNC party chairwoman declared so...officially.

Shrek, have you noticed all the wars Bush started. Turns out they cost money. Lots of of it.

Yes, Obama's policies suck. But essentially, they are the same policies as Bush, and those policies sucked under Bush as well.

Here's an exercise for you Shrek. Sincerely write down in this forum ten reasons why Bush sucked major balls as president. If you do this, I'll reward you with ten reasons why Obama sucks as president. Would that make you happy? Btw, this should be a cakewalk assignment even for you.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Neither are cannibalism or hunter-gatherer societies.

Finally, a silver lining to America's obesity epidemic! Or should I say a fat lining? Either way, keep eating up porkies. Each of you should be able to feed a family of cannibals for a week.

Dan8267 says

an exercise for you Shrek. Sincerely write down in this forum ten

I'll do it, because I'd like to see your list.

1) Bush's intellectual inferiority.
2) Allowing us to be duped into the Iraq war
3) Out of control spending combined with absurd tax cuts.
4) Letting Cheney be President for at least 3 ys.
5) Continuing the policies which allowed the RE bubble to inflate.
6) Failure to properly address Katrina.
7) TARP. The banks and auto makers would have been replaced by more completive entities.
8) His tax policy which has made the Reagan wealth transfers of the 80s look petty.
9) Allowing the FBI to use Carnivore and wiretap w/o cause.
10) Having no plan for Iraq after winning the initial conflict.

TheLastGoodIdeablogspotcom says

Dan8267 says

an exercise for you Shrek. Sincerely write down in this forum ten

I'll do it, because I'd like to see your list.

1) Bush's intellectual inferiority.

2) Allowing us to be duped into the Iraq war

3) Out of control spending combined with absurd tax cuts.

4) Letting Cheney be President for at least 3 ys.

5) Continuing the policies which allowed the RE bubble to inflate.

6) Failure to properly address Katrina.

7) TARP. The banks and auto makers would have been replaced by more completive entities.

8) His tax policy which has made the Reagan wealth transfers of the 80s look petty.

9) Allowing the FBI to use Carnivore and wiretap w/o cause.

10) Having no plan for Iraq after winning the initial conflict.

11) Cooking the books by fighting two wars off-budget

12) Not allowing the government to negotiate drug prices for medicare part d patients

Cooking the books by fighting two wars off-budget, is that anything like adding billions in unfinded healthcare entitlements when nearly half the country was against it without specifying any way to pay for it?

Drink your veggies daily and put the docs in economy cars. Premiums will follow. Shut up and drink.

TheLastGoodIdeablogspotcom says

Dan8267 says

an exercise for you Shrek. Sincerely write down in this forum ten

I'll do it, because I'd like to see your list.

1) Bush's intellectual inferiority.

2) Allowing us to be duped into the Iraq war

3) Out of control spending combined with absurd tax cuts.

4) Letting Cheney be President for at least 3 ys.

5) Continuing the policies which allowed the RE bubble to inflate.

6) Failure to properly address Katrina.

7) TARP. The banks and auto makers would have been replaced by more completive entities.

8) His tax policy which has made the Reagan wealth transfers of the 80s look petty.

9) Allowing the FBI to use Carnivore and wiretap w/o cause.

10) Having no plan for Iraq after winning the initial conflict.

No offense but....

The FBI was using Carnivore during the 1990's. It actually is a old program today and no longer in use.
it operated for three years under Clinton and ended in '05 under Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)

#10 that's true..infact we didn't even know what to do afterward for about two years.

#6 Hurricane Betsy already occurred in the 1960's. Rep Tauzin predicted Katrina nearly five years prior. Did Katrina look like a mess? Yes. Could it have been worse? Yup. The history of the area fortified against flooding from the Mississipi river due to commercial interest rather than the gulf.
Also silt eventually flowed outward causing the city to sink..actual government actions caused this. It was never originally six feet under sea level.
How can any place withstand 10 inches of rain?

To pin this all on bush is a bit misleading to say the least. There was no way the government could have prevented all the damage. It wasn't so much the wind but rather the water damage. I've heard allegations that the levies did hold against the wind but detached floating oil rigs slammed into them..hard to stop those. It was ironic that older technologies were used (ham radios) because cell towers would not work.

#5 The president does not have the power to raise or lower interest rates. Robosigning goes back around 15 years if not longer. That would be like saying Clinton should have prevented the dot com crash from happening by authorizing Harvey Pitt to audit each and every IPO.

#2 Iraq didn't end from his father. The USA and UK bombed Iraq on a weekly basis for around eight years under Clinton. Just because it wasn't featured on tv doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Besides where is the anti war movement today? There's probably more people in clubs for the Coleco Adam! The anti war movement was really a anti bush movement. Most of the left could care less about what the president does as long as he's a democrat. We've bombed libya, gone into pakistan, sent a "surge" to afganistan, covert war in Yemen etc. If people only protest when ground troops are sent that's a pretty poor ethical policy..bombing runs and air wars are exempt...

I once got into an argument with democrat delegate (she had a sweater from the '96 convention). I asked her if bombing people was a act of war and she said no. Then I asked if pearl harbor was a act of war..again she said no.

#1 I can't exactly say that intelligence equals performance in the white house. Supposedly Carter has a genius IQ (140+). Bush and Gore were 2.0GPA students for their undergrads.

mdovell says

To pin this all on bush is a bit misleading to say the least. There was no way the government could have prevented all the damage.

The *response* was the point, not the prevention.

The president does not have the power to raise or lower interest rates. Robosigning goes back around 15 years if not longer. That would be like saying Clinton should have prevented the dot com crash from happening by authorizing Harvey Pitt to audit each and every IPO.

The boom (2002-2004) was caused by falling interest rates but the *bubble* (2004-2006) was largely caused by new policy of the administration.

Increased 80/20 loans, liar loans, interest-only loans, teaser rate loans, negative-am loans, these were all innovations that let the free market fuck itself in just a few short years.

The Administration deregulated Wall Street to enable a lot of this on the back-end. Pulled FBI resources from financial enforcement to anti-terrorism.

But nice try defending the undefensible.

Besides where is the anti war movement today? There's probably more people in clubs for the Coleco Adam! The anti war movement was really a anti bush movement. Most of the left could care less about what the president does as long as he's a democrat. We've bombed libya, gone into pakistan, sent a "surge" to afganistan, covert war in Yemen etc.

What a crap argument. The anti-war movement wasn't strong enough to stop the war so it's too fucking late now. We were protesting to stop the damage, now the damage has been done so there's no point protesting.

Plus we're out of Iraq for the most part. Afghanistan is a different war and is harder to get out. If we keep fucking things up there protests will happen again, but there is a timetable to disengage and that keeps most people happy.

If people only protest when ground troops are sent that's a pretty poor ethical policy..bombing runs and air wars are exempt...

That's some industrial-grade bullshit right there. Don't tell me how to think, clown.

TheLastGoodIdeablogspotcom says

Dan8267 says

an exercise for you Shrek. Sincerely write down in this forum ten

I'll do it, because I'd like to see your list.

1) Bush's intellectual inferiority.

2) Allowing us to be duped into the Iraq war

3) Out of control spending combined with absurd tax cuts.

4) Letting Cheney be President for at least 3 ys.

5) Continuing the policies which allowed the RE bubble to inflate.

6) Failure to properly address Katrina.

7) TARP. The banks and auto makers would have been replaced by more completive entities.

8) His tax policy which has made the Reagan wealth transfers of the 80s look petty.

9) Allowing the FBI to use Carnivore and wiretap w/o cause.

10) Having no plan for Iraq after winning the initial conflict.

Great TheLastGoodIdeablogspotcom, you put me in a conundrum. On one hand, I don’t want to reward Shrek with the list until he’s admitted to 10 things that suck about Bush. It’s kind of like training a dog. You don’t give it the treat unless it learns a lesson. On the other hand, my sense of fairness wants me to provide the list since at least someone admitted to Bush sucking and is probably not an Obama supporter since a supporter wouldn’t call this hand. I guess I’ll give this one to Shrek for free.

1. Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he took office. He kept it open. This makes him as responsible for the atrocities committed there as Bush is.

2. When Obama finally ended torture at Gitmo, he continued international extradition, which is just code for outsourcing torture. He should be tried as a war criminal for this, too.

3. Obama has ordered the assignation of U.S. citizens. Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. Article No matter what you think of al-Alwaki, every person especially a U.S. citizen is entitled to a fair trial before execution. Obama is guilty of attempted first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. What is even scarier is that our government now has a list of citizens it wants to execute. We don't know who's on the list, but we know it's more than just one person.

4. Obama failed to bring charges against the Bush/Cheney administration, thereby condoning the crimes against humanity committed by that administration. At least Kucinich had the balls to say he would do that if elected.

5. Obama has murdered hundreds of innocent civilians in drone attacks including children accomplishing only deteriorations of relationships with Pakistan and other Middle Eastern nations.

6. Obama bailed out the banks just like Bush did, but even more so.

7. Obama appointed bankers from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs to regulate the banking industry. Here and here. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house...

8. Obama allowed the public option to be dropped from debate on health care despite the fact that it was one of only two actual pieces of reform in any proposed legislation and had popular support.

9. Obama also dropped the single payer reform in health care, the other only actual piece of reform.

10. Obama caved on letting the "temporary" Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% to expire, thereby continuing the destruction of the middle class and enhancing the already ridiculous ultraRich-middleClass gap.

You can chuck up the second half of the list to Obama just being a typically crappy politician, but the first five items are capital offenses. I think I've made the case that both Bush and Obama are evil, and largely for the exact same reasons. Have you noticed that the Republicans and Fox News never bash Obama on any of the first five items on my list? It's because they support those items.

Dan, I appreciate your descision to post your list. I don't frequnet these boards often, but I didn't think Shrek would post his list.

As a formerly pragmatic centrist, I am always curious when I run across someone who might have a non-koolaid effected PoV. I think you are disappointed because O didn't follow through with a lot of his promises, which I do see as a major professional flaw. Not entirely differnet from how Clinton appealed to the democratic party and then bailed on much of what he promised, which makes him a true politcal animal.

While his hand has been forced, I find his descisions on economic policy to be his most disappointing failure.

TheLastGoodIdeablogspotcom says

I think you are disappointed because O didn't follow through with a lot of his promises

Not quite. We all expect politicians to make empty promises. So failing to fulfill campaign promises hardly distinguishes Obama from every other president, or every other politician for that matter, that came before him.

And although I greatly disagree with Obama's handling of the housing bubble, the economy, regulation of banks, and other economic issues, these political disagreements are not nearly justification for calling Obama evil. Foolish perhaps. Wrong, sure. But definitely not evil.

What makes me use the term "evil" to describe Obama -- and yes, I use the word sparingly since it is a very strong position -- are items #1 through 5. There is no refuting the facts about these points. What astonishes me is that not everyone in the public is up in arms about things that are down-right immoral, unethical, and scary. Each of those five points is a deal killer to me, and I don't get why they aren't deal killers to other people.

Is the value of human life so minimal that these crimes are considered misdemeanors? I cannot imagine Americans from the turn of the 20th century tolerating such atrocities. Why do 21st century Americans tolerate them?

My only conjecture is that people think "at least he's not a Republican; they would do worse". And unfortunately, I have to agree. Rick Perry has killed hundreds of people as a mere governor and he was cheered for doing so. He'd probably kill millions as president. Still, it's sad we have to choose between the lesser of two evils when both evils are great.

Dan8267 says

What astonishes me is that not everyone in the public is up in arms about things that are down-right immoral, unethical, and scary.

That gets to where I have a titanic problem with the main stream media which I feel mostly has a liberal lean, but the right wing outlets are no different. They would never put a turd in the punch bowl and risk poisioning the programming of their sheeple.

And truthfully, its the same thing on the far right, who would rather maintain control of the party with an iron fist, even if it means losing the election by putting forth a candidate from the vein of Palin, Huckabee or Bachmann.

The pendulum has swung far right, then it came back and went far left. I wish we could bring it closer to center but it will probably swing far right again.

on point 5, yeah, we need to get out of Afghanistan. How can you even expect change when the bad guys get to refit and retrain on the other side of a border. Drone attacks will change nothing on the other side of the border except to piss people off. We can't be chasing extremists across every countries border and that's exactly what would be needed. These people have no borders, they have a philosophy that trancends borders.

TheLastGoodIdeablogspotcom says

Cooking the books by fighting two wars off-budget, is that anything like adding billions in unfinded healthcare entitlements when nearly half the country was against it without specifying any way to pay for it?

If you are talking about what you call "Obamacare", its not off-budget. Just because you don't like it, and even if you don't think the plan to pay for it will work, doesn't make it off budget. Bush didn't even pretend to find a way to pay for Iraq, Afghanistan, or Medicare part D. And you conservatives marched like lemmings to push it through.

Correction to my post, item #2 on the list: international extradition --> extraordinary rendition

TheLastGoodIdeablogspotcom says

Cooking the books by fighting two wars off-budget, is that anything like adding billions in unfinded healthcare entitlements when nearly half the country was against it without specifying any way to pay for it?

Please explain this to Shrek. Maybe he'll listen to you.