Online Now 758

The Paddock

The place to discuss general topics outside of Kentucky

On this Board 19
Record: 470 (10/27/2012)

Online now 1189
Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

The Paddock

The place to discuss general topics outside of Kentucky

UK Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

****Official Politics Thread****

  • CarlLexington said...

    I don't think you're considering he's having to work with the most disagreeable congress in history.

    Really??? ... Yet you discount the fact that Obama and the Democrats had majority control of Congress his first years as POTUS. If he couldn't get anything done then... why is that, all of a sudden, Congress is to blame? The excuses made for Obama is so laughable, it hurts.

    signature image signature image

    JawJacker

  • CarlLexington said...

    It isn't false. It's what he did. He cut others jobs. He didn't take a pay cut did he.

    It wasn't an easy decision and you know it. He had several safer options. He didn't know for sure if it was even him. It was a 60% chance at best. When you consider, and he did, the failed mission in Iran under Carter and blackhawk down it was a terribly tough call to make and how dare you pretend it wasn't just because you hate him.

    By far the most disagreeable and the number of censures backs me up 100%. He never had a super majority in both houses which is what you need nowadays to do anything. He has tried and tried to work with congress and they have continuously disregarded him. You're wrong. And it was officially a super majority but not really. Any blue dog dem, and there are several, crossing the aisle ends any so-called super majority. For all intents and purposes he didn't have one and what's more he shouldn't need one. This super majority is unconsitutional and isn't what the founding fathers intended.

    Reagan and Clinton both worked with congresses that would work with them even though they were each opposing congresses. Yes Clinton and Reagan both deserve credit for working with opposing congresses but the congresses of each party deserve just as much credit for working with a president of an opposing party. Obama has tried and tried to work with them and they won't even compromise on things they agreed with him on in the past. They have said their number one goal is to make Obama a one term president. Not the economy. Not Health care. Not education. Killing Obama. They do that by putting down anything he might get credit for that would help the country. I blame him for not knocking his own parties heads when they needed it and I'm not enthused by him but he's a GOD compared to that do nothing congress that would rather flush us all down the toilet than to compromise on anything. Our credit being downgraded is a prime example. Obama offered what was recommended in cuts to go along with a modest revenue hike on the top 1%. If it was acted on by congress we wouldn't have been downgraded and our recovery would have been further down the road than it is. But congress shot it down without even considering it.

    Obama has not tried. he's been on a re-election campaign since he got in office.

    Was he involved in the super committee discussions? No. Was he involved in the payroll tax extension no.

    And yes, He had two years of a super majority in congress. 60 democrat senators and control of the US house of reps.

    He had 2 years of a super majority. The debt issue was there when he got in office. he ignored it for two years.

    As Jack Welch said. He came into a burning house and tried to remodel the kitchen. Welch, like me was a supporter 3 years ago of obama. Obviously isn't now and neither am I.

    hoptownukfan

  • hoptownukfan said...

    As Jack Welch said. He came into a burning house and tried to remodel the kitchen. Welch, like me was a supporter 3 years ago of obama. Obviously isn't now and neither am I.

    I respect that... it's what any 2008 Obama voter, with any honesty at all, should feel. Unless of course, they have absolutely no clue about the issues... and only vote for "ignorant" reasons.

    signature image signature image

    JawJacker

  • JawJacker said...

    I respect that... it's what any 2008 Obama voter, with any honesty at all, should feel. Unless of course, they have absolutely no clue about the issues... and only vote for "ignorant" reasons.

    Unless you are a socialist it's hard for me to understand why anybody could support obama this time around. I'm what I like to call a "progressive capitolist". I believe in capitolism and having a government that protects people but does not block business. I'm indifferent on social issues.

    Romney is my guy but any of the republicans would be a better option at this point besides Paul. Ron Paul will lead us into the end of the world with his view of Iran.

    hoptownukfan

  • Congress's approval rating is at an all time low of 11%. So I guess 89% of the country are ignorant. I wish Obama was a socialist. Socialism is a good thing and in case you weren't aware we already do have Socialism in America and it works great. Mitt Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has never done a real days work in his life. He sees people as text on his bottom line. The good things he's done he has totally abandoned and says he regrets them. He's a rich boy that would sell his own father to be president. I'd vote for Santorum or Paul before him. At least they're honest.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • BigTyrone said...

    Are you serious? He got his healthcare plan passed! And check this site out for more...

    They see all that as Socialism.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • I see it as following the teachings of Christ.

    BigTyrone

  • BigTyrone said...

    I see it as following the teachings of Christ.

    It's clear that if Jesus was alive he'd be a democrat. That's for sure. He was a hippy man. That's a good thing. He would have fit right in with the hippies of the 60's preaching his peace and love. Jesus had his wine. The hippies had their weed.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • BigTyrone said...

    Are you serious? He got his healthcare plan passed! And check this site out for more...

    Behind closed doors making shady deals... good for him. Other than spend us into deeper debt, he managed to pass a healthcare bill that will soon be ruled unconstitutional... having a full majority congress, that's not much to brag about. Let's face it... he's been a failure.

    signature image signature image

    JawJacker

  • CarlLexington said...

    It's clear that if Jesus was alive he'd be a democrat. That's for sure. He was a hippy man. That's a good thing. He would have fit right in with the hippies of the 60's preaching his peace and love. Jesus had his wine. The hippies had their weed.

    Jesus Christ would not be a Democrat.

    Kind of hard for Jesus to be a Democrat when he believes in right to life, Marriage as man and woman, and that people should be responsible for themselves and help others. He didn't preach to mooch of the system, to kill all the babies of the poor(abortion), or to blame others for everything because you feel entitled.

    It's a shame that the Democrats who have the most atheists in it keep trying to spread this lie about Christ would have been a Democrat. He would have been an INDEPENDENT!

    signature image

    Stoopified!

    cobbycobb

  • There are evils on both sides that the good book warns us of.... greed, adultery, liars, thieves, murderers, etc. We will be judged, individually, as human beings (for our actions and beliefs)... not by our party affiliation. Therefore, we can't say that Jesus would be either a Republican OR a Democrat. Having said that, if there is "one label" that best describes what Jesus would NOT be, it's a "Liberal".... and that cannot bode well for any liberal come judgement day. biggrin

    Before anyone's head explodes in anger... I was just being facetious. It's ridiculous for anyone to say what party Jesus would be affiliated with. Jesus wants all of us to be united, loving, caring and tolerant people.... everything that WE and our political parties ARE NOT. Our 2 party system has turned us against eachother and has our nations people more divided and full of hate than ever. That "us against them" wall has gotten so high and spread across so many segments/classes of society... we will NEVER be "united" again. It's a shame, but some people allowed that "division" to turn into "hatred"... and we've elected people to office who set that demoralizing, dooming example. Instead of firing their asses, we are so caught up with "what side" we're on... that we make excuses and defend the very people who are keeping us divided and destroying our country. It's a shame what we've become.

    Like was said earlier... philosophical differences dictate how people vote (educated voters that is). Having said that... to ever unite and find peace with those who differ, we would have to find a way to make "everyone" and their views, as equally important, as any others who differ... AND learn to give a little without "HATING" and accusing others who differ, of being something EVIL.

    We all know that's NEVER gonna happen. Sad.... just sad.

    Actually, whats really sad is... there are so many things that most of us would have in common and agree on, if we ever took the time to really get to know one another, but instead, we've allowed politics to force a wedge between us... cheating ourselves out of, what could be, great friendships. It's amazing how far some have taken it... thank God, I can honestly say that I still have friends of all political spectrum's. It''s slowly, but surely, becoming more impossible for anyone to say that.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by JawJacker on 1/11/2012 at 3:43 AM

    signature image signature image

    JawJacker

  • cobbycobb said...

    Jesus Christ would not be a Democrat.

    Kind of hard for Jesus to be a Democrat when he believes in right to life, Marriage as man and woman, and that people should be responsible for themselves and help others. He didn't preach to mooch of the system, to kill all the babies of the poor(abortion), or to blame others for everything because you feel entitled.

    It's a shame that the Democrats who have the most atheists in it keep trying to spread this lie about Christ would have been a Democrat. He would have been an INDEPENDENT!

    You take things way too seriously man. You should kick back and smoke a joint. Put your feet up. Order a pizza. Watch Ron Burgandy. That always puts things in perspective.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • cobbycobb said...

    Jesus Christ would not be a Democrat.

    Kind of hard for Jesus to be a Democrat when he believes in right to life, Marriage as man and woman, and that people should be responsible for themselves and help others. He didn't preach to mooch of the system, to kill all the babies of the poor(abortion), or to blame others for everything because you feel entitled.

    It's a shame that the Democrats who have the most atheists in it keep trying to spread this lie about Christ would have been a Democrat. He would have been an INDEPENDENT!

    Where does Jesus say to be responsible for yourself--not saying it's a bad idea. It's just not a theme He talked about often or at all. Likewise, at least in a historical context, He wouldn't have known what an abortion was and He had only brief and mild reprimands of homosexuality.

    However, the over-riding theme of what Jesus preached was to help for the poor, downcast, and downtrodden--even to sacrifice everything you have to do so. Obviously He lived at a time where there was no such thing as government charity, but that doesn't mean He wouldn't support such a thing today especially when private measures would fall drastically short of the needs.

    The core essence of the Democratic party is that there should be a safety net for basic human needs and that Americans shouldn't have to live below a certain level.

    The core essence of the Republican party is that what an individual has is his and shouldn't be messed with. And I want to kill all my enemies.

    Which of those sounds more like Jesus to you?

    djkycat54906

  • Yeah, I don't think Jesus' most important value would be corporate greed.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • dj-ky-cat said...

    Where does Jesus say to be responsible for yourself--not saying it's a bad idea. It's just not a theme He talked about often or at all. Likewise, at least in a historical context, He wouldn't have known what an abortion was and He had only brief and mild reprimands of homosexuality.

    However, the over-riding theme of what Jesus preached was to help for the poor, downcast, and downtrodden--even to sacrifice everything you have to do so. Obviously He lived at a time where there was no such thing as government charity, but that doesn't mean He wouldn't support such a thing today especially when private measures would fall drastically short of the needs.

    The core essence of the Democratic party is that there should be a safety net for basic human needs and that Americans shouldn't have to live below a certain level.

    The core essence of the Republican party is that what an individual has is his and shouldn't be messed with. And I want to kill all my enemies.

    Which of those sounds more like Jesus to you?

    Dj, that would be nice if true. As a person who has observed government as a democrat and Obama supporter and now and independent I can say that what uou describes is not the democrat party. The democrat party of Obama wants people to rely on government those who rely on government will re-elect them and keep them in power. The democrat party is no longer the party of Clinton and the idea of a hand up. It is now the party of left Wing socialist who want a European socialist state that forces people to rely on government and ensures a high tax and high unemployment rate.

    I wish Clinton had control of the party because I worry that the direction obama is leading is could destroy it forever .

    hoptownukfan

  • dj-ky-cat said...

    Where does Jesus say to be responsible for yourself--not saying it's a bad idea. It's just not a theme He talked about often or at all. Likewise, at least in a historical context, He wouldn't have known what an abortion was and He had only brief and mild reprimands of homosexuality.

    However, the over-riding theme of what Jesus preached was to help for the poor, downcast, and downtrodden--even to sacrifice everything you have to do so. Obviously He lived at a time where there was no such thing as government charity, but that doesn't mean He wouldn't support such a thing today especially when private measures would fall drastically short of the needs.

    The core essence of the Democratic party is that there should be a safety net for basic human needs and that Americans shouldn't have to live below a certain level.

    The core essence of the Republican party is that what an individual has is his and shouldn't be messed with. And I want to kill all my enemies.

    Which of those sounds more like Jesus to you?

    Dj, that would be nice if true. As a person who has observed government as a democrat and Obama supporter and now and independent I can say that what uou describes is not the democrat party. The democrat party of Obama wants people to rely on government those who rely on government will re-elect them and keep them in power. The democrat party is no longer the party of Clinton and the idea of a hand up. It is now the party of left Wing socialist who want a European socialist state that forces people to rely on government and ensures a high tax and high unemployment rate.

    I wish Clinton had control of the party because I worry that the direction obama is leading is could destroy it forever .

    hoptownukfan

  • I don't think for one second that you voted for Obama. Maybe you're young and have started getting into Rush Limbaugh since the last election or something. Whatever happened someone has your mind twisted because Obama is not a far left socialist. He never even proposed universal healthcare. Hillary would have been more of a liberal President if she was elected. The difference is that Hillary knows how things work in Washington and would and slapped some people up. The other side would have known coming in that they couldn't walk all over her like they have Obama. She would chew Mitch and Cryer up, spit em out, and tell Bill to get her a sandwich. All before lunch.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • CarlLexington said...

    I don't think for one second that you voted for Obama. Maybe you're young and have started getting into Rush Limbaugh since the last election or something. Whatever happened someone has your mind twisted because Obama is not a far left socialist. He never even proposed universal healthcare. Hillary would have been more of a liberal President if she was elected. The difference is that Hillary knows how things work in Washington and would and slapped some people up. The other side would have known coming in that they couldn't walk all over her like they have Obama. She would chew Mitch and Cryer up, spit em out, and tell Bill to get her a sandwich. All before lunch.

    Most of what you think isn't true. Therefore you thinking I didn't vote for Obama doesn't surprise me.

    I witnessed the disaster that was George bush for 8 years. I thought Obama would allow Clinton to help him. Sadly he hasn't. In my life I have voted republican for president 3 times and democrat 4 times. Carter once, Clinton twice. Reagan twice ghwb once.

    You can call me names and make stuff up all you want. Par for the course coming from you. We need a Clinton type leader right now. But presented with a Romney v. Obama I vote Romney. Not happy about it but it's a much better choice.

    hoptownukfan

  • hoptownukfan said...

    Most of what you think isn't true. Therefore you thinking I didn't vote for Obama doesn't surprise me.

    I witnessed the disaster that was George bush for 8 years. I thought Obama would allow Clinton to help him. Sadly he hasn't. In my life I have voted republican for president 3 times and democrat 4 times. Carter once, Clinton twice. Reagan twice ghwb once.

    You can call me names and make stuff up all you want. Par for the course coming from you. We need a Clinton type leader right now. But presented with a Romney v. Obama I vote Romney. Not happy about it but it's a much better choice.

    I haven't called you any names although you have called me names and been warned for it. I haven't made anything up. You have. For someone not happy about voting for Romney you sure do praise him a lot. I don't like either so I will stay home and not vote.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • dj-ky-cat said...

    The core essence of the Democratic party is that there should be a safety net for basic human needs and that Americans shouldn't have to live below a certain level.

    The core essence of the Republican party is that what an individual has is his and shouldn't be messed with. And I want to kill all my enemies.

    Dj... I know we tend to be on opposite sides, but I've always respected you as a poster... mainly because of the time and detailed way you articulate your message. (opinions, views, etc). With that said... I think you are way off on this one my friend. It's not the core essence of either the Republican party or Democrat party that matter... it's the core essence of the United States Constitution that matters. It states that ALL people (R's, D's, whatever) have personal property rights, which is "the right" to ALL personal possessions.... including earned income.

    When the framers of our constitution refer reverently to property, they mean NOT just land, as a great many mistakenly believe when first exposed to the philosophy, but to ALL of one’s possessions... his books, his shoes, his pets, his vehicles, his houses, his rusty rakes hanging in the shed, and most certainly his money, his paychecks, his bank accounts... anything and everything that is produced by his labor.

    We can all agree that certain subsidized programs are necessary to take care of the needy... but it's NOT (and NEVER was) the right of the U.S. Government to dictate how and what we spend our money on. We are a generous and charitable people... we have the right to give whatever and whenever we see fit. History shows that we (as a people) do a damn good job of giving on our own free will ..."without" government assistance. It's not up to a Nanny State Government who "think" they know best how to spend the peoples money.... NOR is it their right to "take" (steal) from anyone to give to another.

    It's just not right... and not acceptable (atleast from those who still respect the constitution and care about their rights, freedoms and liberties). The government is the worst when it comes to managing money... why do some wish for them to have that kind of power over it's people's income? It's foolish.

    About the healthcare thing ... yeah, we all would like to see sensible reform, but to support an administration and vote for politicians who want to "FORCE" it's citizens to buy or purchase "anything" or face a fine and possible jail time... is just the same as bending over, grabbing the ankles and praying that it don't hurt TOO bad. You are just giving in to being totally dependent on the government and sacrificing your own dignity... the kind of dignity that accompanies the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Some of you support this kind of tyranny and think it's okay for Obama to force Americans to enter into a purchase agreement (health ins.), but the fact is, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL... and should NEVER be tolerated.

    signature image signature image

    JawJacker

  • dj-ky-cat said...

    Where does Jesus say to be responsible for yourself--not saying it's a bad idea. It's just not a theme He talked about often or at all. Likewise, at least in a historical context, He wouldn't have known what an abortion was and He had only brief and mild reprimands of homosexuality.

    However, the over-riding theme of what Jesus preached was to help for the poor, downcast, and downtrodden--even to sacrifice everything you have to do so. Obviously He lived at a time where there was no such thing as government charity, but that doesn't mean He wouldn't support such a thing today especially when private measures would fall drastically short of the needs.

    The core essence of the Democratic party is that there should be a safety net for basic human needs and that Americans shouldn't have to live below a certain level.

    The core essence of the Republican party is that what an individual has is his and shouldn't be messed with. And I want to kill all my enemies.

    Which of those sounds more like Jesus to you?

    Show me where Jesus said to mooch off the system, to murder innocent people(babies), where the bible says to live off of the assistance of others and make no attempt at providing for oneself.

    Yes, the over-riding theme of Jesus is to help the poor, downcast and downtrodden. But it is to do so on a personal level, not by cohersion of the government through the taking(stealing) ones wealth to give to another.

    The core essence of the Democratic party is to force more people to be dependent upon the government for handouts and to get themselves re-elected. They nor the Republican party truly give a rats @ss about the voters or individuals other than themselves.

    It's been shown numerous times that Republicans and Independents donate more money to charities than a Democrat. The Democrats are all about giving other peoples money away just not their own.

    Galatians 6:5 For each will have to bear his own load.

    signature image

    Stoopified!

    cobbycobb

  • cobbycobb said...

    Show me where Jesus said to mooch off the system, to murder innocent people(babies), where the bible says to live off of the assistance of others and make no attempt at providing for oneself.

    Not every person on welfare is mooching off the system. That's the problem with people like you(republicans). You think it's all just lazy moochers but those people are in the minority.

    Abortion isn't murder.

    See first paragraph.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • cobbycobb said...

    Galatians 6:5 For each will have to bear his own load.

    Galations 6:2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ

    djkycat54906

  • Jawjacker--I won't try to argue your points, although I think some (maybe most) are hyperbolic distortions.

    But you're arguing modern day politics vs. the norms of 200+ years ago. I'm trying to argue it against the norms from 2,000 years ago. Let's try to stay relevant here.

    There's really no argument that Jesus and the early Christians were at or near the bottom of their society. Jesus' message was to those who didn't have anything. I can't think of a situation where he ever rebuked a poor person (his disciples excepted) but there are several times when he went after the rich and the powerful.

    I'm not trying to claim that Jesus would espouse the Democratic party, were He around today. But I strongly reject the idea that he would approve of the other side. The thing that's clear is that the people that Jesus was most interested in ministering to are the ones that will tend more to vote Democratic. The demonization of those people, which has become common among Republicans, is about the most anti-Jesus thing a person can do.

    djkycat54906

  • CarlLexington said...

    I haven't called you any names although you have called me names and been warned for it. I haven't made anything up. You have. For someone not happy about voting for Romney you sure do praise him a lot. I don't like either so I will stay home and not vote.

    You said I didn't vote for obama. Not true. thanks...

    hoptownukfan