Thread: Texas judge warns of civil war if Obama is re-elected

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Like I've said before if anyone thinks this partisanship and divide just happened I've got a bridge to sell you.

It's always been there, there are just more places to read about it now and more dumb opinionated pundits who want to tell us how bad things are now. All you have to do is read old newspapers. Same commentary from people about how ruthless elections have gotten. The print version of candidate ads at least have always been brutal, some of the oldest ones from the early days of this country are absolutely the worst.

Originally Posted by DaveW

I saw the comment earlier that the election was between two moderates, and I have no clue how anyone would see Obama's past voting record as moderate.

Well, you have almost 4 years of his governance, so you can judge him based on that. I'd say moderate is about right, the whole 'socialist', 'european', etc. hogwash is simply the spin from the opposition punditry, who have gone much more conservative in their rhetoric because sensationalism and drama is what's making money (cf. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, reality shows, fox news). Just take 'Obamacare' which appears to be one of the favorite things to demonize. A decade ago it would have been the republican version of the bill, constitutional/anti-constitutional mandate included. Or more along the thread topic the ammo stockpiling in 2009 because Obama was going to take everybody's guns and ammo and when he didn't that was just the evidence of his more sinister plot.

The republican party just had the opportunity in the primary process to nominate a presidential candidate who would best represent it. And they selected the most moderate of all candidates. Now, either the republican party is really moderate, or they are easily swayed by big money and that's what trumped ideology (they also selected the candidate who vastly outspent everybody else). If it's the later case, you can bet that money will even more certainly trump ideology when it comes to actual governance and real policies.

Yes, now Romney talks a lot of 'conservative' talk, but if/when he gets the power, I suspect that he will govern much more moderately than people seem to believe right now (remember, he speaks french like John Kerry, passed 'Obamney care', was pro-gay and pro-abortion before he was against it....). Just like Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan (yes by today's conservative rhetoric standard he's a moderate).

It's definitely a lot easier to run a presidency with middle tendencies. Especially in terms of money and motivating people on the other side of the aisle. I don't believe Obama's personal beliefs are nearly as middle of the road as romney's but that doesn't change the fact that both of them know about where their decisions need to sit to protect both votes and campaign contributions.

If you're moderate in function, despite personal beliefs, the fringers will still provide money ultimately (at least the ones with money will, those who understand what happens if you don't get elected). If you're partisan in everything, unwilling to compromise and extreme in some beliefs, you just motivate everyone except a small slice to give money to someone else, and you motivate the fringers on the other side of the aisle to come out in high %'s at the next election.

The only time partisanship of major proportions helps is in primaries. One thing that always stuns me is how hard people will stump for hard-line candidates of both sides when they should have the sense to know that there is no chance that the hard liners will beat a moderate in an election.

(I don't listen to any pundits or read any political opinion columns or blogs to come up with my thoughts above. I can't stand talk radio, though I'll admit the anti-productive anti-private sector stuff turns me off a lot more than the far rightist tin-foil hat stuff).

"We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them."
Charles Mackay 1841

Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackay

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

But Jimmy,all the Chinese are helping our failing economy,They are buying the millions of foreclosed homes the Americans once owned.

The Chinese economy has started to shrink.

Originally Posted by Wintchase

That is terrible... A public official calling for a civil war... Maybe we should give him a free ticket to Syria to see how those turn out. Maybe he can pick up some tips and come back and tell us how great those civil wars go?

He didn't call for a Civil War, he is predicting one.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Without taking the bait. I think in fairness, after 9/11 we would have gone to war no matter who was president. I supported both wars (both politically and physically) at the time but IMHO, once OBL was dispatched every American kid in Afghanistan should have been sitting at home within a week and the flow of American taxpayer money into Afghanistan and Pakistan should have come to a screaming hault. Instead, our Commander in Chief, quietly and unilaterally agreed to an American presence AND continuing aid to Afghanistan (and the Karzai family heroin business) until 2024. What an inspirational leader and a compassionate man, BLESS HIS HEART.

I agree. People act like Bush took us to war single handed. BOTH parties were hollering long and loud for war.

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, you have almost 4 years of his governance, so you can judge him based on that. I'd say moderate is about right, the whole 'socialist', 'european', etc. hogwash is simply the spin from the opposition punditry, who have gone much more conservative in their rhetoric because sensationalism and drama is what's making money (cf. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, reality shows, fox news). Just take 'Obamacare' which appears to be one of the favorite things to demonize. A decade ago it would have been the republican version of the bill, constitutional/anti-constitutional mandate included. Or more along the thread topic the ammo stockpiling in 2009 because Obama was going to take everybody's guns and ammo and when he didn't that was just the evidence of his more sinister plot.

The republican party just had the opportunity in the primary process to nominate a presidential candidate who would best represent it. And they selected the most moderate of all candidates. Now, either the republican party is really moderate, or they are easily swayed by big money and that's what trumped ideology (they also selected the candidate who vastly outspent everybody else). If it's the later case, you can bet that money will even more certainly trump ideology when it comes to actual governance and real policies.

Yes, now Romney talks a lot of 'conservative' talk, but if/when he gets the power, I suspect that he will govern much more moderately than people seem to believe right now (remember, he speaks french like John Kerry, passed 'Obamney care', was pro-gay and pro-abortion before he was against it....). Just like Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan (yes by today's conservative rhetoric standard he's a moderate).

My judgement of Obama's governance is that he is about as far from a moderate as you can get. Shutting down coal mines, shutting down oil drilling, raising the hell out of CAFE standards, blocking the pipeline, giving fortunes to alternative energy companies that have no hope of succeeding, massive increase of government by creating unelected Czars, spending on an unprecedented scale, ignoring bankruptcy laws and taking over private companies and reorganizing them by handing them to unions, massing increases in regulation of private industry, intimidating companies by telling them "I'm all that stands between you and the pitchforks".

Oh yes, he's right down the middle alright.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Without taking the bait. I think in fairness, after 9/11 we would have gone to war no matter who was president. I supported both wars (both politically and physically) at the time but IMHO, once OBL was dispatched every American kid in Afghanistan should have been sitting at home within a week and the flow of American taxpayer money into Afghanistan and Pakistan should have come to a screaming hault. Instead, our Commander in Chief, quietly and unilaterally agreed to an American presence AND continuing aid to Afghanistan (and the Karzai family heroin business) until 2024. What an inspirational leader and a compassionate man, BLESS HIS HEART.

You should not be unaware that there are dozens of forces fighting in a war you started. My son-in-law just got back from Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan, being machine gunner there, quit the army and never get back again (his words). Surprisingly the percentually highest death toll is with Denmark. Now every life counts, i have friends that have died there or crippled mentally or physically for life, and still you call it as your internal political game. You do not mess with your country only but when you decide to go you are messing with so many other countries as well. Folks that are not willing to fight or die for US or what it represents. Still we have to, every day.

We had some spec forces in Iraq but more in Afganistan. I was lucky to say no when i was called. I rather eat worms.
I've been in Lebanon (UN, those ridiculous blue helmets, as someone said), former Yugoslavia (KFOR) and eastern Africa (EUFOR) and (imho) i've learned something about life. I've learned something about judges who live in a steady country, promising the civil war if this or that gets elected. To hell with them.

Originally Posted by DaveW

I don't believe Obama's personal beliefs are nearly as middle of the road as romney's

A rational person would not care at all what somebody's beliefs are, only what their actions are. I know there are all these 'value voters' who care deeply to elect one of their own, however I'm old enough to know that the result is them simply getting taken for the proverbial ride.
All the bleeding hart liberals acted as if Obama is going to magically usher this Utopia, but as I expected nothing of the sort happened (one doesn't from when he started to where he ended by being naive) - he appointed people from the establishment and stayed pretty much in the middle of the road.
Likewise, despite those 'conservative family values' Romney had no problem with high-level gay officials running his campaign - the guy was forced to go away by external forces.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

My judgement of Obama's governance is that he is about as far from a moderate as you can get. Shutting down coal mines, shutting down oil drilling, raising the hell out of CAFE standards, blocking the pipeline, giving fortunes to alternative energy companies that have no hope of succeeding, massive increase of government by creating unelected Czars, spending on an unprecedented scale, ignoring bankruptcy laws and taking over private companies and reorganizing them by handing them to unions, massing increases in regulation of private industry, intimidating companies by telling them "I'm all that stands between you and the pitchforks".

Oh yes, he's right down the middle alright.

We've been through this before - I think you'd be better off if stop swallowing every propaganda hook, line, and sinker thrown your way and instead look at the things called facts, i.e. what happens in reality. Just a hint - when you set up a standard to measure somebody, try holding up 'your guys' to that same standard and see what happens.