Moscow Bans Gay Pride...for 100 years.

[NCRAVEN]

18> barely 1.

And to me, raising the debt ceiling isn't exclusively wrong. In fact, the mere threat by Republicans of us not doing so caused a dip in our credit rating as you recall (or don't).

I wasn't talking debt ceiling specifically but debt in general.

Let me get this straight, you're claiming our credit rating was lowered because Republicans threatened not to allow the country to borrow more money?

It's funny that you supported the legislation, but dont' want to take ownership of it. I wouldn't either if I voted like you did. It's a disgrace.

This is awesome, now you're rewriting history to frame your arguments. That my friend is disgraceful.

You need to go back and read the thread Galen started about BHO announced support of Gay Marriage where I said I voted against the amendment.

Who proposed the legislation? Who supported it? Are you really so delusional as to think that this isn't at the core of evangelical Christianity and as a result neo-conservativism? You aren't entitled to your own facts either, but you are more than welcome to interpret the however you want. That's America, baby.

I'm not generalizing, nor am I so simple as to think that all conservatives believe any one thing. That's simply how you choose to read it (and everything with which you disagree - selectively). There are many Democratic supporters who exercise similar prejudice, the best example being religious African Americans (though that seems to be slowly changing thanks to the President). I've acknowledged that prejudice is not limited to any one group of people, and you said as much in your response, yet for some reason can't view my comments in that context...

You are generalizing and you are saying all conservatives believe one thing. That is what you and I ALWAYS go back and forth over

I interpret them that way because read your previous mentioned nothing about anyone other than Republicans. You were very clear about it be conservative/republican views. You routinely say nothing about Democrats or anyone other than Republicans/conservatives/the right until your confronted about it.

And I said you've acknowledge in previous threads but not the post I quoted today, it's like you forgot it was pointed out to you earlier in the thread.

[TheExtraPoint]

President's don't raise or lower the debt ceiling. Congress does

Weak. President's also have the power to stop it or encourage it. We know what side of history both men find themselves on however you choose to qualify it (it's the correct side, by the way). If you want to use that same logic, why do so many call the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare"? It was introduced by Charlie Rangel. In today's climate, President's are held accountable for everything that happens under their watch in all facets of government, rightly or wrongly (I think the latter).

And your spin on Obama's positions on gun control are amazingly ill-informed. He has already instructed the DoT to limit the number of armed pilots on commercial aircraft. He supported legislation introduced by Senator Lautenburg, limiting the sale of high capacity clips. In November of 2010, he tried to ban target shooting on public lands. One of his first acts as President was issuing an executive order, banning the importation of rifles that have been deemed historic. He has also been a public supporter of the UN Arms Trade Treaty which seeks to ban all handguns.

And lets us not forget his justice department allowing guns to flow freely across the border so he'd have the ultimate gun ban taking point.

Weaker still, you counteract my "spin" with a laughable conspiracy theory that may or may not have started in the blogosphere, and a small handful of ideas he supports or believes in but hasn't at all pursued as President? A flimsy example of a reduction in federal air marshals intended to somehow correlate to the important issue of gun control? You gotta come a little harder than that.

I get what the President supports. Increased gun control. That's a core progressive value. But his efforts or accomplishments to that end are nowhere to be found, and don't in any way suggest a conspiracy to "take your guns away". If the President was able to address the issue of gun control in the way I suspect he (and I for that matter) believe is best, you wouldn't be terribly concerned about historic rifle imports or air marshal reductions or clip sizes.

[HoustonRaven]

A wordy response to the simple notion that Obama is everything good, we are everything bad.

Debating someone with such a narrow world view is tedious at best.

[NCRAVEN]

A wordy response to the simple notion that Obama is everything good, we are everything bad.

Debating someone with such a narrow world view is tedious at best.

My thoughts exactly.

I generally spend time on here during the day because I work in an EXTREMELY small office, so I debate with the two Libs for entertainment. But it get's old debating a 10,000 word response that amounts to:

Democrat good, Republican bad

[AirFlacco]

Maybe we should do the same thing here.

Look at what they did in this photo. Even the
WH was upset.


http://now.msn.com/now/0623-reagan-middle-finger

[Greg]

Sure, moderate conservatives are more liberal than "severe conservatives" like Mitt Romney on SOME issues - especially when compared to a guy who lived 50 years ago (which by the way probably says more about the merits and/or poularity of progressive ideology than I presume you'd be willing to admit).

Romney a "severe conservative"? The guy gave this country its first version of universal healthcare. He is a moderate (using today's ridiculoous standards) like the Bushs who have endorsed him. I am an extreme conservative (libertarian, actually) and I know what one looks like. There are none on the national stage, save Paul.

What this movement over the years in political descriptions says it our eductional system sucks except at progressive indoctrination.

Of course, if you were to look at the current President's record on gun control, I'd argue he is to the right of every Democratic President in the history of this country. By contrast, how "conservative" would Ronald Reagan - who raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his Presidency - appear to be in the context of today's neo-conservative political ideology. He'd suddenly be pretty unpopular. Or maybe not. I can't keep up sometimes...

Reagan didn't raise the debt celing, the Democrats in Congress did. If Reagan's budgets had been passed as written, or at least only spent the money he proposed he would have left office with a surplus. That is a mathematical fact.

What's more important to the discussion in my view is that the power center of the Republican party - the group of voters, politicians and corporations driving the party's policy and rhetoric - is to the right of the the previous Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, and to the right of their most recent President George W. Bush.

Finally. Bush and McCain are big government types (I would call them liberals). If the Republicans are run by big government types who is to stand for smaller, limited government; for liberty and freedom? It sure as hell ain't the Democrats.

Most reasonable people agree that the historical American conservatism you likely aspire to (maybe represented by a guy like Ron Paul for instance) is far different than today's neo-conservatism that has become the dominant force in Republican politics. I had to chuckle when you said "today's moderate Republican". I know they are out there, but they aren't exactly being represented so far as I can tell.

The moderate Republicans ARE the neo-cons. They expand government just like Democrats. Paleo-conservatives are the ones who are true conservatives. And the neo-conservatives are the Bushs, they have been running the party since Reagan. The "right wing radicals" are the Tea Party folks who want limited government. They just want government placed back into its constitutional role. It has far exceeded those barriors thanks to Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

As for most "reasonable" people, the veiled insult was noted. They might be "reasonable" but they are not politically astute.

Most important to this THREAD however, you failed to address my overarching point in your attempt to minimize my argument. Russia, the country

Mitt Romney coined "our number one geopolitical foe", and American conservatives actually agree that rights for non-heterosexual human beings should be removed by the state. It's not a connection I care to delve into too deeply into as it's in many ways redundant around here. But I do think it's fascinating whenever American conservatives, Russian Communists and Muslim Fundamentalists all find themselves in each others company on virtually any issue

.

What? Conservaties do not believe rights should be removed for anybody not convicted of a crime. We just believe that we should all share the same rights and that special rights should not be created for some people. No consevative wants to ban gay pride whatever. I just don't believe people should be walking down the street naked or committing sex acts or dressing 3 year olds up is sado-massochist garb, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

[Kevlar]

Looks like the ruskies have us beat on at least one front.

[TheExtraPoint]

This is awesome, now you're rewriting history to frame your arguments. That my friend is disgraceful.

You need to go back and read the thread Galen started about BHO announced support of Gay Marriage where I said I voted against the amendment.

I remember reading your comments in that thread, but clearly remembered your vote incorrectly. I apologize for that.

That legislation was and still is disgraceful. We seem to agree on that much.