Dano's Observations

KingCondanomation

New member
Back from the dead, just some thoughts I figured I would share.

1. The recovery is unlikely to succeed, we have seen in Greece, Spain, Portugal and now France that high amounts of government spending and the debt that always goes along with it (despite higher taxes), eventually drain an economy and really a nation of money, talent and opportunity. There is no special reason why the same policies that the Democrats advocate would yield any different results here. If anything they would be excacerbated because America is so much more integrated in the world economy and people/companies are more mobile here.

2. Because of this, people will be far more accepting of change in parties in the next election, thus the Republicans would be wise to elect a very staunch Conservative and Paul Ryan would be a great choice. There will probably never be a better chance at cutting government. We don't need another Romney or Bush who pretends to run as a conservative and really grows government.

3. There is an expediting death of moderates in both parties, this has some good and bad. Bad is that some of it is largely coming from redistricting gerrymandering and it results in more hate and division. But good is that it helps people more clearly define where policies are coming from - few things made me more crazy than seeing moderate Repubs join with Dems in voting for certain spending and then having the whole Republican party take the blame.

4. The Dems should be most proud under Obama of closing out the Iraq occupation, but why not use that as justification for making some military spending reductions as was done in the 90's? Why the focus on tax increases?

5. The most ironic thing I have seen in my generation is young people advocating for a president, party and philosophy that will and has yielded staggering debt that, in all honesty, THEY will be the ones paying for and seeing this as change, hope or whatever other positive emotion they think is happening.

6. Democrats should really stop using fear; whether over abortion, race, immigration or education to try and get the votes of women, blacks, hispanics and young people. Is it not enough their party goes into elections with the advantage of tens of millions of votes from people who are dependent on government for handouts and know who to vote to sustain/increase them?

7. Republicans like birthers, Libya obsessors and others who denigrate the president with either lies or wild beliefs are hurting their party far more than any slanderous leftwinger could do. Knock that shit off, there's far more than enough real things to criticize Obama and the liberal Dems in power of than having to resort to conspiracy bullshit that most could care less about.

8. I find it fascinating and expected that the Green movement is largely moving in turn with the economy and how people are doing. It is really a movement based on sacrifice and it's nothing new in human history that material sacrifice is more done in good times than bad.
Largely unnoticed was that the US with increasing oil development is on its way to energy independence and being a much larger producer of oil.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/12/us-biggest-oil-producer
Why do we continue to listen to the left over false warnings about oil running out?

9. Too many people are not seeing governments role in terms of limitations, either explicitly by legal means or implicity by numbers and facing reality, they are seeing it more in terms of government continually taking care of people, but there is no limit to that kind of thinking...

10. I swear if all I hear is a few "Welcome Back!"'s and then this thread dies, then why the fuck am I wasting my time here, I came here for the above not to check in.
 
Fuck you and a half.
Also that was supposed to be Watermark's line.


Haven't lost that charm, Dano. Friday afternoons are relatively quiet around these parts. I'd address your post but I'm not in the mood, really.

Stick around, though. The rest of the right-wingers around here fall into the type you describe in #7 on your list there. It's tiresome.
 
Haven't lost that charm, Dano. Friday afternoons are relatively quiet around these parts. I'd address your post but I'm not in the mood, really.

Stick around, though. The rest of the right-wingers around here fall into the type you describe in #7 on your list there. It's tiresome.
I'm sorry to hear you're too tired to be in the mood, but if that's really true can you please stop continuing to screw America?
 
Dano, we often hear either republicans or conservatives say the republicans didn't nominate a true conservative and that's why we lost. I look at the nominees in the primary and many were a joke (as far as being president was concerned). I would love to see a guy like Paul Ryan run the country and make real economic changes but I don't know how realistic that is (at least today, maybe in four years it will be more so.) how will hi message appeal to those who voted for Obama?
 
Dano, we often hear either republicans or conservatives say the republicans didn't nominate a true conservative and that's why we lost. I look at the nominees in the primary and many were a joke (as far as being president was concerned). I would love to see a guy like Paul Ryan run the country and make real economic changes but I don't know how realistic that is (at least today, maybe in four years it will be more so.) how will hi message appeal to those who voted for Obama?
I'm not sure a message needs to, when things go bad, people (or at least the independents/moderates that decide elections) give the other guy a chance, usually with very little argument needed to persuade them.
But certainly his message is different than Obama's and if people associate what Obama said with what his policies have reaped in the expected negative fashion, than a different message is something for them to appeal to as they want to try something new.
 
7. Republicans like birthers, Libya obsessors and others who denigrate the president with either lies or wild beliefs are hurting their party far more than any slanderous leftwinger could do. Knock that shit off, there's far more than enough real things to criticize Obama and the liberal Dems in power of than having to resort to conspiracy bullshit that most could care less about.


THIS!
 
I'm not sure a message needs to, when things go bad, people (or at least the independents/moderates that decide elections) give the other guy a chance, usually with very little argument needed to persuade them.
But certainly his message is different than Obama's and if people associate what Obama said with what his policies have reaped in the expected negative fashion, than a different message is something for them to appeal to as they want to try something new.

Except Obama's business is not finished. People realize just how serious the destruction was under the last Republican administration. Rather than scrutinising the last four years of a Democrat President people compared the ending of a Democrat Administration in 2000 to the ending of a Republican Administration in 2008. They tried something new in 2000 and paid a heavy price.

Oh, and.......



 
Except Obama's business is not finished. People realize just how serious the destruction was under the last Republican administration. Rather than scrutinising the last four years of a Democrat President people compared the ending of a Democrat Administration in 2000 to the ending of a Republican Administration in 2008. They tried something new in 2000 and paid a heavy price.

Oh, and.......




apple, there was a recession at the end of Clinton's term. And I'm not sure where you get this idea that Clinton didn't push the same housing policies that Bush did which was to encourage home ownership, especially among lower income folks and minorities. Now obviously it came crashing down under Bush's watch but this idea that these housing policies started in 2001 is just flat out wrong. Go read up on it.
 
4. The Dems should be most proud under Obama of closing out the Iraq occupation, but why not use that as justification for making some military spending reductions as was done in the 90's?
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Why give the boob Obama any credit at all....he had little to do but not fuck up the agreement what Bush negotiated...


And

You should realize that the money used for Iraq war was borrowed money....there is no money saved, we just need to borrow a little less....
I know the pinheads won't understand the difference, but you should.


No 6 ?.....Its hardly just the younger set that votes in ignorance and willfully fails to
even entertain the calamity that could come from this hugh unmanageable debt....
Just look around this board....

No 7 ?.....We have in just a few short years 'given' 2 major and important countries to
the self-defined enemys of the US....Egypt and Libya...in the hands of Hama and/or
the Muslim Brotherhood....that doesn't bother you at all ?....
 
Last edited:
Back from the dead, just some thoughts I figured I would share.

1. The recovery is unlikely to succeed, we have seen in Greece, Spain, Portugal and now France that high amounts of government spending and the debt that always goes along with it (despite higher taxes), eventually drain an economy and really a nation of money, talent and opportunity. There is no special reason why the same policies that the Democrats advocate would yield any different results here. If anything they would be excacerbated because America is so much more integrated in the world economy and people/companies are more mobile here.

2. Because of this, people will be far more accepting of change in parties in the next election, thus the Republicans would be wise to elect a very staunch Conservative and Paul Ryan would be a great choice. There will probably never be a better chance at cutting government. We don't need another Romney or Bush who pretends to run as a conservative and really grows government.

3. There is an expediting death of moderates in both parties, this has some good and bad. Bad is that some of it is largely coming from redistricting gerrymandering and it results in more hate and division. But good is that it helps people more clearly define where policies are coming from - few things made me more crazy than seeing moderate Repubs join with Dems in voting for certain spending and then having the whole Republican party take the blame.

4. The Dems should be most proud under Obama of closing out the Iraq occupation, but why not use that as justification for making some military spending reductions as was done in the 90's? Why the focus on tax increases?

5. The most ironic thing I have seen in my generation is young people advocating for a president, party and philosophy that will and has yielded staggering debt that, in all honesty, THEY will be the ones paying for and seeing this as change, hope or whatever other positive emotion they think is happening.

6. Democrats should really stop using fear; whether over abortion, race, immigration or education to try and get the votes of women, blacks, hispanics and young people. Is it not enough their party goes into elections with the advantage of tens of millions of votes from people who are dependent on government for handouts and know who to vote to sustain/increase them?

7. Republicans like birthers, Libya obsessors and others who denigrate the president with either lies or wild beliefs are hurting their party far more than any slanderous leftwinger could do. Knock that shit off, there's far more than enough real things to criticize Obama and the liberal Dems in power of than having to resort to conspiracy bullshit that most could care less about.

8. I find it fascinating and expected that the Green movement is largely moving in turn with the economy and how people are doing. It is really a movement based on sacrifice and it's nothing new in human history that material sacrifice is more done in good times than bad.
Largely unnoticed was that the US with increasing oil development is on its way to energy independence and being a much larger producer of oil.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/12/us-biggest-oil-producer
Why do we continue to listen to the left over false warnings about oil running out?

9. Too many people are not seeing governments role in terms of limitations, either explicitly by legal means or implicity by numbers and facing reality, they are seeing it more in terms of government continually taking care of people, but there is no limit to that kind of thinking...

10. I swear if all I hear is a few "Welcome Back!"'s and then this thread dies, then why the fuck am I wasting my time here, I came here for the above not to check in.

1. I predicted this would be a long one even before most even thought we were going to have a recession.
The golden age of the USA is past.
We must learn to be satisfied with less.

2. No way in hell, Ryan would lose worse than Romeny.

That is enough for now.

Welcome back Kotter.
 
I notice almost everybody who said, "Welcome back!" are lefties who want Dano to go away...

Number 7 isn't bad at all, and one of the things that I told to the radio guy 'round these parts who still, yes still, believes that where Obama was born would change things or that it is really, really important that his mom was in college in Washington State for the first two years of his life and that Dinesh D'Souza (or however you spell that guy's name) got it wrong in some boring movie....
 
I'm a greenie, who is also a "drill, baby, drill" guy, but I think you're ultimately wrong on oil. I'm fine w/ drilling as much as we can domestically to gain energy independence, but I'll never get the short-term outlook that it encourages. It makes nothing but sense to transition -and quickly - to renewable sources of energy. They're cleaner, and hey - they DON'T RUN OUT. The fact is, no one - not even people steeped in the industry for decades - has any idea how long we have until oil starts to run out. It may be a decade, or it may be as long as a century, but probably not much longer than that.

And boy, when it does...well, all you have to do is check out what happened on Staten Island after Sandy. Renewables are smart policy. They're not liberal or conservative.
 
apple, there was a recession at the end of Clinton's term. And I'm not sure where you get this idea that Clinton didn't push the same housing policies that Bush did which was to encourage home ownership, especially among lower income folks and minorities. Now obviously it came crashing down under Bush's watch but this idea that these housing policies started in 2001 is just flat out wrong. Go read up on it.

I know Bush wasn't responsible for the housing crisis. My point is over the eight years Bush was President surely he was made aware of the impending disaster. He spent his time on TV trying to convince the people of the necessity of war instead of spending some time trying to convince people of the impending financial disaster.

People keep saying Obama is responsible for correcting the situation he found himself in when elected in 2008, regardless of who was responsible for that situation. We can't keep blaming Bush for decisions made in the past, they say. In that case we can't blame the Dems for putting in place policies that contributed to the financial crisis. The crisis didn't happen until almost 8 years after Bush took office so there was considerable time to get a handle on it or, at least, warn the people.

Furthermore, if there was a recession at the end of Clinton's term and the beginning of the Repub term what incompetent fool would start a war with Iraq and say it was an affordable option? The point is the Repubs' attention was on war and never on the financial aspect of the country and we've seen the results.

We all know it's a lot easier to get into debt than it is to get out of it and that's what's happening today. Obama can't spend his entire term correcting the problems left over from the last administration. He has to keep going forward, health care being the main one but alternative energy being another. Those two things are not frivolous spending. They're items that require immediate attention, yet, the last administration left the country in such poor shape that even vital programs like those are questioned as to the ability of the country to pay for them. That shows the seriousness of the Repub mismanagement and I think people took that into consideration when voting.

The financial crisis. The incorrect information that led to war. The people experienced the events/lifestyle under the Dem administration (1992-2000) and the Repub administration (2000-2008). Then they looked at Obama's first term. Even if Obama has increased the debt the people see they will be getting something out of it rather than their money lost on war and financial crap shoots.

Regardless of who is to blame the disasters occurred while the Repubs had the White House. Just the wrong place at the wrong time? Maybe. Or maybe gross incompetence. Can the country afford to take another chance? The people didn't believe so and voted, again, for Obama.
 
No 7 ?.....We have in just a few short years 'given' 2 major and important countries to
the self-defined enemys of the US....Egypt and Libya...in the hands of Hama and/or
the Muslim Brotherhood....that doesn't bother you at all ?....[/COLOR]

"Given"? Right there is the problem, regardless of quotes around it. Ask your self this question, "Why do we have to fight and threaten to keep "friends"?" Are they really friends? Even wonder how quick that friendship would change if our ability to fight and threaten was affected? Ever wonder if they're really our friends and not working behind our back?

Seems to me not a very secure way to build foreign policy.
 
"Given"? Right there is the problem, regardless of quotes around it. Ask your self this question, "Why do we have to fight and threaten to keep "friends"?" Are they really friends? Even wonder how quick that friendship would change if our ability to fight and threaten was affected? Ever wonder if they're really our friends and not working behind our back?

Seems to me not a very secure way to build foreign policy.

Yes, "given".....we used our own military and money to depose Gaddafi, who was NO THREAT to the US and even co-operating with us to a degree, knowing that
the Muslim Brotherhood would fill that vacuum just as they did in Egypt.....
and to say Obama didn't KNOW it, would be another admission of his well established incompetence.....
Libya was a carbon copy of what went down in Egypt.
 
Yes, "given".....we used our own military and money to depose Gaddafi, who was NO THREAT to the US and even co-operating with us to a degree, knowing that
the Muslim Brotherhood would fill that vacuum just as they did in Egypt.....
and to say Obama didn't KNOW it, would be another admission of his well established incompetence.....
Libya was a carbon copy of what went down in Egypt.

Weren't you just advocating sending our military to Israel?
 
Back
Top