• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

On this political "unity" Crap

It's hard to believe that this crap is still going strong as ever for some people on here. Yes, after the election some people posted multiple threads of a negative story about Sarah Palin. It was tecnically a legitimate news story because this information (which is arguable whether it is legitimate or not considering that the source was anonymous within the McCain campaign) was just released after the election and was displayed on all of the news channels. While it was technically a legitimate news story and some did discuss it rationally while taking it with a grain of salt, there were others on here who believed it without question and seemed to take extreme delight in kicking the woman while she was down. These people wanted to scream "I told you so!" as loud as they possibly could.

Now, there are also some Conservatives on here now who are still using the same anti-Obama talking points that they were using pre-election and they are using the absurd Sarah Palin bashing to justify it. A lot of people were desperately waiting for this election to be over just so the partisan **** (which always does exist but was at its absolute peak during the election process) would simmer down significantly. It's sad to see that for many on both sides it hasn't. A lot of Liberals still feel like bashing Sarah Palin and a lot of Conservatives just refuse to throw their support behind Obama because they don't see eye to eye with him on a lot of issues.

Granted, a lot of Liberals did and still do endlessly attack Bush, but I honestly didn't see anyone attack Bush until the Iraq war began, which was well into his first term as President. People gave him a chance and especially rallied behind him right after 9/11. Perhaps those Conservatives who so strongly disagree with Obama should wait and give him a chance before they decide to criticize the man when he's even not even officially the President yet. Perhaps the Liberals who still feel like bashing Sarah Palin should discuss the issue rationally or simply leave it alone, especially since the election is now over and the information that has been released is sketchy at best. Personally, this is the kind of political unity that I would like to see.
 
Perhaps the Liberals who still feel like bashing Sarah Palin should discuss the issue rationally or simply leave it alone, especially since the election is now over and the information that has been released is sketchy at best. Personally, this is the kind of political unity that I would like to see.
Click to expand...

I think the Palin deal is because:

1. A lot of us are aghast at how unqualified a candidate she was, and how close she came to actually winning; information released by her own staff subsequent to her losing suggests she was more unqualified than even the most hardened cynics among us ever imagined. I guess we're kind of just, you know.
Relieved? And repeating this as a cautionary tale?

2. Because some conservatives suggest they'd like Palin to run for President in 2012.
As unlikely as that might be, I think that in light of it, these cautionary tales bear repeating.

and finally, 3. I think the above two circumstances really illustrate the rift that has developed between the left and right in this country.
Perhaps everyone's idea of being a "good winner" is that we ignore this rift or sweep it under the rug; that we pretend we don't see how far outside the mainstream the conservative right has drifted.
But I don't think ignoring it will fix it.
I think we need to address it, and show them the error of their ways, in an attempt to bring them back toward the center, back into the fold.

Otherwise, we're going to end up really screwed.
We've got a significant minority of our population that has gone totally wacky. We can't just ignore that.
We need to understand it and address it, and figure out what made them feel so disenfrachised from mainstream American life that they decided to cut themselves adrift this way. Is it really abortion? Gay marriage? Gun rights? Illegal immigration? Prayer in schools? Do they think we disrespect them because of their faith?
Or is it something deeper? Do they feel like everybody center and left is some kind of snobby intellectual who looks down on them?
What can we do to repair this rift and bring them back to a place where we can communicate as equals again?

That's what we need to be asking.

Palin is a symptom of that rift.
I don't have a problem discussing her as long as she's still a relevant issue and she's still an issue as long as right-wing extremists continue to idealize her to the point that they'd consider electing her frickin' president in four years.
 
Last edited:
It would be in our best interests to help Obama go down in history as a good president, in spite of himself. Because he is black, if our first black president goes down as bad, and not like George Washington, we will never hear the end of it. The presidency will become like the Miss America Pageant. The next president, should Obama fail, will be Vanessa Williams after she has lost a leg, an eye, and her hearing.

It would be far better to have Republicans being seen going into the White House, like Democrats being called by Reagan. The total lack of that was Bush's greatest flaw, which I noticed in the first year. If Obama does not make the call, Republicans should. To get things done there is going to have to be some compromises, and it will be the job of the very conservative to make sure any compromises are safe in light of Obama's connections and brownshirts.

We do not have to be unified except to fix the problems and that will take some give and take. Bush never gave anything; for years the National Energy Policy with Obama's electrical grid was held up for basically one item stubborn Republicans could not let go of, can you spell "ANWR." That never would have happened with Reagan.

It would not hurt us that much to suggest we spend a stimulus on a socialist building program of nuke plants or solar panel plants. The TVA did more than Carter's CETA, so direct energy in that manner. If we are going to be socialists be smart socialists and get something that lasts for the money and doesn't just feed a man for a day but gives him energy for a lifetime.
 
Billo_Really said:
Here we have another person who does not put "Country First".
Click to expand...

So how were Democrats putting country first while we were at war for the last 8 years?

You have a curious hypocrisy if you think the Bush and Iraq bashing the last 8years was putting country first.

But do share how Democrats worked WITH this administration and put country first. Or is putting country first only an objective when there is a Democrat majority?

Carry on.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Once again, I am reminded why I ignore you and your kind so much. It's your level of severe partisanship that convinces other countries that we as a country are not united.

John McCain has reason to be madder than all of you towards Obama. Yet, even he said he will support "his" new president. That's the sign of a man, of a patriot. He knows that sometimes you have to fight your comrade, only to unite with him against others.

Carpe Diem
Click to expand...

As opposed to your level of severe partisanship; pot meet kettle!

:2wave:
 
Cardinal said:
If I'm "avoiding your question" it's because I already know that you and I already have many ideological differences. So I could say that you should support Obama in strengthening environmental regulations but since I suspect you wouldn't get behind that, what's the point? But it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one side you seem to be implying that you'll oppose Obama simply out of spite and regardless of whether Obama's strategies are actually good and work. Out the other you're implying you'll have legitimate policy disagreements with him, which is of course worthy of DP debate. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Why does your political affiliation say "Very Conservative"? Is this a private joke of yours?
 
dclxvinoise said:
It's hard to believe that this crap is still going strong as ever for some people on here. Yes, after the election some people posted multiple threads of a negative story about Sarah Palin. It was tecnically a legitimate news story because this information (which is arguable whether it is legitimate or not considering that the source was anonymous within the McCain campaign) was just released after the election and was displayed on all of the news channels. While it was technically a legitimate news story and some did discuss it rationally while taking it with a grain of salt, there were others on here who believed it without question and seemed to take extreme delight in kicking the woman while she was down. These people wanted to scream "I told you so!" as loud as they possibly could.

Now, there are also some Conservatives on here now who are still using the same anti-Obama talking points that they were using pre-election and they are using the absurd Sarah Palin bashing to justify it. A lot of people were desperately waiting for this election to be over just so the partisan **** (which always does exist but was at its absolute peak during the election process) would simmer down significantly. It's sad to see that for many on both sides it hasn't. A lot of Liberals still feel like bashing Sarah Palin and a lot of Conservatives just refuse to throw their support behind Obama because they don't see eye to eye with him on a lot of issues.

Granted, a lot of Liberals did and still do endlessly attack Bush, but I honestly didn't see anyone attack Bush until the Iraq war began, which was well into his first term as President. People gave him a chance and especially rallied behind him right after 9/11. Perhaps those Conservatives who so strongly disagree with Obama should wait and give him a chance before they decide to criticize the man when he's even not even officially the President yet. Perhaps the Liberals who still feel like bashing Sarah Palin should discuss the issue rationally or simply leave it alone, especially since the election is now over and the information that has been released is sketchy at best. Personally, this is the kind of political unity that I would like to see.
Click to expand...

I am more than happy giving Obama a chance to fulfill all his promises to the Left. As a matter of fact, I expect him to keep ALL of his promises and hold to his economic platform of creating BIGGER Government to create more Government jobs.

What you are missing is the notion being put forth by Liberals everywhere that we should put all our differences aside now and support Obama's program for the sake of America.

These are the same people that saw NO reason to work with Bush for 8 years. The timeline you are talking about post 9-11 lasted about two months; then the finger pointing and bashing began in earnest once again.

You conveniently forget that these are the same people who think that Bush stole the 2000 election and were devoted to doing everything and anything they could to destroy this Administration.

Yes, all this "unity" stuff is a steaming pile of Liberal bile. The minority party has an obligation to the American people to reject programs that are viewed to be detrimental to our economy and the American people and an obligation to keep track of the record and promises made by this new Administration.

The idea of "unity" should not only mean when Democrats are in charge; we call this HYPOCRISY and it is spelled D E M O C R A T.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
yes, i have only said this like 5 times.
Click to expand...

Good. I just wanted to be clear on that.

Though if he nationalizes 401k's do you expect me to "unify" around him on that issue?
Click to expand...

No rational person would expect you to support a policy you fundamentally disagree with. As I said before, it's understood that you and Obama are going to disagree on certain policies. I'm only interested in the strategies he has on issues you do agree on.

Have you seen me call obama a chimp?
Click to expand...

They don't represent me any more than people who call Obama a monkey.
YouTube - The Obama Racist Sock Monkey Doll?
 
1069 said:
I think the Palin deal is because:

1. A lot of us are aghast at how unqualified a candidate she was, and how close she came to actually winning; information released by her own staff subsequent to her losing suggests she was more unqualified than even the most hardened cynics among us ever imagined. I guess we're kind of just, you know.
Relieved? And repeating this as a cautionary tale?

2. Because some conservatives suggest they'd like Palin to run for President in 2012.
As unlikely as that might be, I think that in light of it, these cautionary tales bear repeating.

and finally, 3. I think the above two circumstances really illustrate the rift that has developed between the left and right in this country.
Perhaps everyone's idea of being a "good winner" is that we ignore this rift or sweep it under the rug; that we pretend we don't see how far outside the mainstream the conservative right has drifted.
But I don't think ignoring it will fix it.
I think we need to address it, and show them the error of their ways, in an attempt to bring them back toward the center, back into the fold.

Otherwise, we're going to end up really screwed.
We've got a significant minority of our population that has gone totally wacky. We can't just ignore that.
We need to understand it and address it, and figure out what made them feel so disenfrachised from mainstream American life that they decided to cut themselves adrift this way. Is it really abortion? Gay marriage? Gun rights? Illegal immigration? Prayer in schools? Do they think we disrespect them because of their faith?
Or is it something deeper? Do they feel like everybody center and left is some kind of snobby intellectual who looks down on them?
What can we do to repair this rift and bring them back to a place where we can communicate as equals again?

That's what we need to be asking.

Palin is a symptom of that rift.
I don't have a problem discussing her as long as she's still a relevant issue and she's still an issue as long as right-wing extremists continue to idealize her to the point that they'd consider electing her frickin' president in four years.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
1069 said:
I think the Palin deal is because:

1. A lot of us are aghast at how unqualified a candidate she was, and how close she came to actually winning; information released by her own staff subsequent to her losing suggests she was more unqualified than even the most hardened cynics among us ever imagined. I guess we're kind of just, you know.
Relieved? And repeating this as a cautionary tale?
Click to expand...

Yet none of you are aghast at how unqualified Obama is and he was the Presidential candidate, not VP.

ZERO executive experience
ZERO foreign policy experience
ZERO US Senate experience
ZERO State House record voting "present" more than 90% of the time.

This debate is fascinating in its denial and the FACT that the President YOU elected even stated as early as 2004 he was unqualified to be President.

Yet here you all are aghast at the lack of experience from a VP candidate with ten times the executive experience of your Presidential candidate.

Don't believe what I am saying; here it is from the mouth of Obama in 2004:

YouTube - Obama Admits He's Unqualified For '08 Run

Now either he is a blatant liar, or had some HUGE revelation from God after making these comments.

Carry on.
:rofl
 
Truth Detector said:
ZERO State House record voting "present" more than 90% of the time.

This debate is fascinating in its denial and the FACT that the President YOU elected even stated as early as 2004 he was unqualified to be President.

Yet here you all are aghast at the lack of experience from a VP candidate with ten times the executive experience of your Presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

He voted "present" like 140 out of over 4,000 votes. Check your math. I don't think that's 90%.

Experience doesn't matter if you can't speak intelligently about the things you will be in charge of. Obama can do that. She can't.

Do you think Carter would have been successful if he only had another four years of experience?
 
Truth Detector said:
I am more than happy giving Obama a chance to fulfill all his promises to the Left. As a matter of fact, I expect him to keep ALL of his promises and hold to his economic platform of creating BIGGER Government to create more Government jobs.

What you are missing is the notion being put forth by Liberals everywhere that we should put all our differences aside now and support Obama's program for the sake of America.

These are the same people that saw NO reason to work with Bush for 8 years. The timeline you are talking about post 9-11 lasted about two months; then the finger pointing and bashing began in earnest once again.

You conveniently forget that these are the same people who think that Bush stole the 2000 election and were devoted to doing everything and anything they could to destroy this Administration.

Yes, all this "unity" stuff is a steaming pile of Liberal bile. The minority party has an obligation to the American people to reject programs that are viewed to be detrimental to our economy and the American people and an obligation to keep track of the record and promises made by this new Administration.

The idea of "unity" should not only mean when Democrats are in charge; we call this HYPOCRISY and it is spelled D E M O C R A T.
Click to expand...


Actually, I for one agree with you wholeheartedly that the opposition party really should voice it's disagreements with the majority party. God forbid that it fall silent!! Seriously, what a truly horrible thought. We must have opposition for a healthy discussion.

I do think that you are simply setting up a straw man, however. Well, perhaps there are probably alot of people who don't really know what they mean when they say Unity.

In any case, what I mean when I say it is that the Democrats must listen to Republican opposition, must give it serious consideration in drafting legislation, must govern from the center left instead of overreaching, must include the Republican faction in every procedural construction for passing legislation, etc. etc.

In turn the Republicans should give this bipartisan approach its chance to work, should avoid partisan opposition tactics in favor of healthy dialogue, that sort of thing. But, fall silent... please do not!

Some people believe the Democrats should do exactly what the Republicans did when they came to power. I disagree very strongly with those Democrats.

The reason is not simply a change in governments. For me, it is the times we find ourselves in.
 
Truth Detector said:
So how were Democrats putting country first while we were at war for the last 8 years?

You have a curious hypocrisy if you think the Bush and Iraq bashing the last 8years was putting country first.

But do share how Democrats worked WITH this administration and put country first. Or is putting country first only an objective when there is a Democrat majority?

Carry on.
Click to expand...
The majority of American's are against this war.

Being in favor of this war is putting country last!
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You are a trip, you make a personal attack, I make a joke of it, and then you have a little tantrum and whine about trolling?


get real. :roll:
Click to expand...
It is not a personal attack to say that you refusing to do your patriotic duty and educating yourself on the issues.
 
Truth Detector said:
As opposed to your level of severe partisanship; pot meet kettle!
Click to expand...

We were talking about supporting a new president. You may have missed that subtle point. :doh

I was 100% behind Bush when he took office, after I accepted how SCOTUS stole it for him. I looked at how he worked with the Dems as gov of Texas and was very optimistic that he would do the same as prez. One stupid, partisan, neo-con directed, selfish decision after another broke my support down. And it didn't take him long either!

If Obama takes us down the wrong road - I will be at the head of the line demanding change. But, I feel it's our patriotic duty and responsibility to show the world we are all behind our new leadership.

The neo-con, Hannity wannabes can't summon the courage and strength to act in such a patriotic manner.

Mark my words, Obama will earn your respect, on most issues, by the end of his first term. You'll see.
 
Billo_Really said:
It is not a personal attack to say that you refusing to do your patriotic duty and educating yourself on the issues.
Click to expand...

right. :roll:



I know all about the issues, I asked you which ones you want me to unify behind obama on.


u as ususal fail.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
right. :roll:



I know all about the issues, I asked you which ones you want me to unify behind obama on.


u as ususal fail.
Click to expand...
You know the issues but are asking me what those issues are.

Good one, skippy!
 
Billo_Really said:
American issues.

How's that?
Click to expand...



about as idiotic and empty as obama's hope and change rhetoric.



what is the issue you are having with my simple question. I really want to know what you expect conservatives to compromise to unify around a far left president.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
about as idiotic and empty as obama's hope and change rhetoric.

what is the issue you are having with my simple question. I really want to know what you expect conservatives to compromise to unify around a far left president.
Click to expand...
American issues are "idiotic"!

I guess that ends your patriotism issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom