Political Rhetoric: Gone Fascist?

[Professor S]

No it's not a good point Mana, and in fact it completely ignores reality in favor of revisonist history. I can see Game's post in Mana's quote, so I'll respond because it's just utterly incorrect on every level.

President Bush designed No Child Left Behind WITH Ted Kennedy. He didn't design it behind closed doors and certainly didn't ignore the party in opposition.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00371

President Bush passed a prescription drug program with bipartisan support and influence. It was close, but voting was not on party lines, with many Republicans voting No and many Democrats voting Yes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00459

All wars started under Bush's presidency received massive public support and congressional support. (and lets not devolve this into a tired "he lied" debate)

Even the much maligned Patriot Act passed with 98 yays, one nay and one no-vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00313

When Bush wanted to privatize social security, he couldn't convince the people and couldn't convince Congress, and it failed.

Regardless of how you feel about his policies, President Bush got his agenda through because he got the votes and had a majority of public support for his agenda when those policies were enacted. The unpopularity of those decisions came later.

President Obama is currently failing to convince the American people or their representatives. When he did, as with the stimulus act, his agenda was passed. Why do you think he's making the populist shift towards the economy and abandoning healthcare as his main concern? He doesn't have to votes to enact his agenda on healthcare, even with a supermajority. If he had the votes, don't you think they would have passed Healthcare reform immediately? They wanted it passed before AUGUST initially. It wasn't delayed because of wanted "bipartisan support", it was delayed because they couldn't overcome a filibuster because other Dems were not on board. And filibusters are part of the process for both parties depending on who is in power. They are there to ensure that controversial and greatly impactful legislation REQUIRES a supermajority to encourage bipartisanship. We've seen little bipartisanship from either side this past year.

If you don't have the votes, you don't get the policy. It's how our democratic republic works. If you don't like it, tough, but you don't get to change the rules without an Amendment to the Constitution.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

No it's not a good point Mana, and in fact it completely ignores reality in favor of revisonist history. I can see Game's post in Mana's quote, so I'll respond because it's just utterly incorrect on every level.

President Bush designed No Child Left Behind WITH Ted Kennedy. He didn't design it behind closed doors and certainly didn't ignore the party in opposition.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00371

President Bush passed a prescription drug program with bipartisan support and influence. It was close, but voting was not on party lines, with many Republicans voting No and many Democrats voting Yes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00459

All wars started under Bush's presidency received massive public support and congressional support. (and lets not devolve this into a tired "he lied" debate)

Even the much maligned Patriot Act passed with 98 yays, one nay and one no-vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00313

When Bush wanted to privatize social security, he couldn't convince the people and couldn't convince Congress, and it failed.

Regardless of how you feel about his policies, President Bush got his agenda through because he got the votes and had a majority of public support for his agenda when those policies were enacted. The unpopularity of those decisions came later.

President Obama is currently failing to convince the American people or their representatives. When he did, as with the stimulus act, his agenda was passed. Why do you think he's making the populist shift towards the economy and abandoning healthcare as his main concern? He doesn't have to votes to enact his agenda on healthcare, even with a supermajority. If he had the votes, don't you think they would have passed Healthcare reform immediately? They wanted it passed before AUGUST initially. It wasn't delayed because of wanted "bipartisan support", it was delayed because they couldn't overcome a filibuster because other Dems were not on board. And filibusters are part of the process for both parties depending on who is in power. They are there to ensure that controversial and greatly impactful legislation REQUIRES a supermajority to encourage bipartisanship. We've seen little bipartisanship from either side this past year.

If you don't have the votes, you don't get the policy. It's how our democratic republic works. If you don't like it, tough, but you don't get to change the rules without an Amendment to the Constitution.

There is a difference between Obama and Bush are their strategy and how they convince the opposition party to come along.

Obama makes massive concessions to the right wing on everything he does. The "creation" of the legislation he puts up for vote has a TON of right wing influence. The difference is that the minority party is now rejecting everything Obama does no matter how many concessions he gives to them.

Obama's issue is that he talks too much.. and he's too nice to do a political attack on the right wing. When Bush pushed for something he simply would say "You vote with me, or I'm going to politicaly attack you for it." I know that's too vauge, so to give more examples..

"You vote for the government to do wireless wire tapping, or I'm going to tell the public that you are too weak to defend the country"

"You vote for the bailout, or when the economy crashes I'm going to blame it on you"

"You vote for the war in Iraq, or when the next terrorist attack happens it's your fault"

etc etc.

Obama is too weak to flex the political muscle that he does have. He never attacks the right wing politically for voting against him, even after making tons of concessions to them. Just until recently he never took out the time to bring up how 1.2 trillion of the deficit is the right wing's fault 100% and was not added by any policy that he added.

The fact that he doesn't mention that at every turn is just an example of how weak he is. It's like he wants the right wing to win. Thus why I call him center-right. He lets them go on TV and blame everything on him even though it's factually incorrect, then we have people on forums like you fear mongering people about what he "might" do opposed to what he has actually done.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

There is a difference between Obama and Bush are their strategy and how they convince the opposition party to come along.

Obama makes massive concessions to the right wing on everything he does. The "creation" of the legislation he puts up for vote has a TON of right wing influence. The difference is that the minority party is now rejecting everything Obama does no matter how many concessions he gives to them.

Obama's issue is that he talks too much.. and he's too nice to do a political attack on the right wing. When Bush pushed for something he simply would say "You vote with me, or I'm going to politicaly attack you for it." I know that's too vauge, so to give more examples..

"You vote for the government to do wireless wire tapping, or I'm going to tell the public that you are too weak to defend the country"

"You vote for the bailout, or when the economy crashes I'm going to blame it on you"

"You vote for the war in Iraq, or when the next terrorist attack happens it's your fault"

etc etc.

Obama is too weak to flex the political muscle that he does have. He never attacks the right wing politically for voting against him, even after making tons of concessions to them. Just until recently he never took out the time to bring up how 1.2 trillion of the deficit is the right wing's fault 100% and was not added by any policy that he added.

The fact that he doesn't mention that at every turn is just an example of how weak he is. It's like he wants the right wing to win. Thus why I call him center-right. He lets them go on TV and blame everything on him even though it's factually incorrect, then we have people on forums like you fear mongering people about what he "might" do opposed to what he has actually done.

Wow, I actually removed you from my ignore list because I thought you might actually have posted something substantive. It's just more of "your version" of events to counter cited facts. I'll know better next time. Back to ignore.

If Pres. Obama has made any concessions "to the right" it was to try and get democrats on board, because that's all he needed to get his legislation passed, and he couldn't do it. There is a lesson in this, and I doubt you'll identify the right one.

As for using fear to get votes? Pres. Obama did plenty of that when passing the stimulus, and he tried hard during the healthcare debate. There is plenty of manipulative grime to spread around for both Bush and Obama.

Bottom line: Get the votes or Amend the Constitution. Thats it.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Wow, I actually removed you from my ignore list because I thought you might actually have posted something substantive. It's just more of "your version" of events to counter cited facts. I'll know better next time. Back to ignore.

What did I say that is factually incorrect?

If Pres. Obama has made any concessions "to the right" it was to try and get democrats on board, because that's all he needed to get his legislation passed, and he couldn't do it. There is a lesson in this, and I doubt you'll identify the right one.

I agree that his concessions were partly made to appease democrats.. but it was mostly made for the right wing in general. The fact is, when you have a large majority like this, its because your party is in the center, and when that happens you're not going to be on the same page 100%.

As for using fear to get votes? Pres. Obama did plenty of that when passing the stimulus, and he tried hard during the healthcare debate. There is plenty of manipulative grime to spread around for both Bush and Obama.

Obama's version of fear mongering is "I might slap you on the wrist if you don't do it, maybe!" vs Bush's "We're all going to die, and you're in the same group with terrorists if you don't follow my lead"

Bottom line: Get the votes or Amend the Constitution. Thats it.

Speaking of votes, you do realize that filibusters are not in the constitution, and the republicans use it on EVERYTHING Obama supports. How many times has Obama even attempted to pass a bill under reconciliation?

[Dylflon]

Shooop.