White House refuses to condemn false slander against Romney in Dem PAC ad

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

After reading and responding to your posts for this long, which end of the political spectrum you inhabit is not in question. It is interesting, though, how so many left-leaning people view themselves as 'centrist' or 'moderate'.

I think its all relative to your position on the political spectrum Ought Six

[Ought Six]

I think its all relative to your position on political spectrum Ought Six

Many lefties see themselves in the center, and anyone to the right of Bill Clinton as 'far right extremists'. My "position on political spectrum" is libertarian, so I am a leftist on many social issues like gay marriage, separation of church & state and drug legalization; and a right-winger on issues like economics, defense, gun control and the size of the fedgov.

[riderboy]

You know what this reminds me of? 5 year-olds fighting in the sand pit in kindergarten.

American politics, especially in the context of presidential elections are getting ever more retarded and petty. From both sides, no less.

Anyone taking part in it should, just for a minute, take a step back and have a little think about what kind of ridiculous ratrace he is participating in.

As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government ever - except for any other. Call it what you will, it's the best we have and it seems to work most of the time. Your German government, IIRC, was formed after a very bloody period in the early 40's known as WW 2. Your government was a gift from the Allies, the German people themselves having come up quite a bit short when left to their own devices with a little Bohemian corporal.

[seasch]

Many lefties see themselves in the center, and anyone to the right of Bill Clinton as 'far right extremists'. My "position on political spectrum" is libertarian, so I am a leftist on many social issues like gay marriage, separation of church & state and drug legalization; and a right-winger on issues like economics, defense, gun control and the size of the fedgov.

So in most cases we do agree, our differnences seem to be priority.

I am like you pro gay marriage, which would make me rather choose Obama than Romney.
I am for a wall between church and state, which again would make me choose Obama over Romney.
I am for drug legalization, again I do see more chance of getting this through Obama than Romney.

I disagree on the economics part. Obama wasn't perfect, to say the least, but nothing from Romney gave me any hope that there would be real change (except if you confound economics with taxation for the super-rich).

I don't think that Obama has done such a bad job with defense. In Iraq, he followed Bush's plan and I doubt a republican president would have been able to stay much longer in Iraq, against the will of its people.
In Afghanistan I see little difference from the way Bush fought the war.
Obama did not close Gitmo (as he had promised) and he seems to be killing to be killing more terrorists in more countries than Bush did.
I think he handled Syria very well, no US-casulties.
Would Romney attack Syria or Iran? Would that be a good thing?

Obama is anticlimatic as a politician. I highly doubt he would do any major changes to gun-laws. Even after all these shootings, I did see nothing more than rhetoric.

[Hexer]

As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government ever - except for any other. Call it what you will, it's the best we have and it seems to work most of the time. Your German government, IIRC, was formed after a very bloody period in the early 40's known as WW 2. Your government was a gift from the Allies, the German people themselves having come up quite a bit short when left to their own devices with a little Bohemian corporal.

lol didn't take long. If you want to be a smartass, at least get your facts straight about German history.

Oh and btw my government was no gift from the allies, I voted for it at the last parliamentary elections.

Edit: And now I have been pondering this a bit longer, would you like to tell me what relevance your remark had, other than being flamebait? Which I have, admittedly, sort of taken.

[NeedsABetterName]

Obama is anticlimatic as a politician. I highly doubt he would do any major changes to gun-laws. Even after all these shootings, I did see nothing more than rhetoric.

You have to understand that our presidents' first terms are spent basically winning re-election (which, generally, they do). Because of that, they often can't afford to touch certain controversial subjects (Bush, for example, didn't attempt anything on Social Security until after re-election. Obama, even with firm majorities in both houses for two years, made extremely calculated decisions on what he chose to address for the same reason; this has led to something of a disillusionment with him among some US liberals). In their second term, however, to quote Obama, they have "more flexibility."

A stated policy goal of the 2008 Obama campaign was a permanent reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, and officials in his administration have been quoted as advocating for such a ban. Quite frankly, I don't trust him any more than I trust Romney on my gun rights. Romney I see as more of a Bush Sr. on the issue, who would act if it were politically convenient to do so (Bush misjudged its convenience, however -- the result was that quite a few Republicans got religion about the Second Amendment after the reaction to his 1989 import ban); Obama has simply had his hands tied due to re-election concerns. Even with a hostile Congress, he has the ability to act on the topic via executive orders and administrative decisions through the various government agencies, and he's certainly shown a willingness to do so when politically expedient (his statements and executive order after the "show me your papers" part of the Arizona immigration statute was upheld are a prime example).

I don't want to turn this into a gun rights debate -- there have been several of those in the past few weeks. The point is that his actions in his first term do not mean he won't act upon reelection, and that isn't exclusive to gun rights.

WRT your other points:
- Obama is now "pro-gay marriage" because he felt that he was losing credibility among that voting bloc due to inaction. It was a calculated move on his part. Up until May 2012, he publicly espoused the exact same views as the President of Chick fil-A.
- Obama has done very little on the issue either way, as has Romney. Like Romney, Obama also draws support from religious organizations (black churches -- traditionally a method to mobilize black voters) and views it as necessary to maintain that support.
- Obama has done d*ck all on the topic. On the contrary, DEA has been pretty busy raiding medical marijuana distributors in California.
- I'm relatively pleased with his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the War on Terror as a whole.
- I don't think that Libya was "our fight," and despite its humanitarian reasons, we had no vested interest in getting involved there.
- While he had a willingness to support the Libyans, he has shown no interest apart from kind words in Syria; I think this is an inconsistent policy. I think he has an interest in maintaining the status quo in Syria, which is (in my opinion) in line with Israeli interests.
- I doubt it. See above for Syria. Iran would likely mean troops on the ground, which is a political non-starter here.

[riderboy]

lol didn't take long. If you want to be a smartass, at least get your facts straight about German history.

Oh and btw my government was no gift from the allies, I voted for it at the last parliamentary elections.

Edit: And now I have been pondering this a bit longer, would you like to tell me what relevance your remark had, other than being flamebait? Which I have, admittedly, sort of taken.

Sure. Which facts are wrong? He was a corporal, wasn't he?

[Ought Six]

So in most cases we do agree, our differnences seem to be priority. I am like you pro gay marriage, which would make me rather choose Obama than Romney.

I think Romney would dearly love to never have to address this issue at all were he elected. I do not expect him to try to strictly enforce DOMA.
----------

I am for a wall between church and state, which again would make me choose Obama over Romney.

Why? You cannot seriously believe that Romney, a Massachusetts liberal Repub at heart, is going to try and insert Xnity into government? This is a non-issue.
----------

I am for drug legalization, again I do see more chance of getting this through Obama than Romney.

It does not have a chance with either. It will take a lot more time before America is ready for that. Another non-issue.
----------

I disagree on the economics part. Obama wasn't perfect, to say the least, but nothing from Romney gave me any hope that there would be real change (except if you confound economics with taxation for the super-rich).

Obama is, IMO, literally economically destroying America. His policies are actively preventing job creation and artificially extending the economic malaise and making this a 'double dip' recession.
----------

I don't think that Obama has done such a bad job with defense. In Iraq, he followed Bush's plan and I doubt a republican president would have been able to stay much longer in Iraq, against the will of its people. In Afghanistan I see little difference from the way Bush fought the war.

So far as Afghanistan, I mostly agree, though it is ironic that Obama used precisely the same policy he ripped Bush for. So far as overall military strategy, procurement and foreign sales, I think there would be signfiicant differences between a Romney administration and the current one.
----------

Obama did not close Gitmo (as he had promised) and he seems to be killing to be killing more terrorists in more countries than Bush did.

.... both adopting and intensifying policies he attacked Bush for.
----------

I think he handled Syria very well, no US-casulties.

"Handled well"? Hardly. 'Did not fvck up massively'? Yes.
----------

Would Romney attack Syria or Iran?

Neither of us know. Will Obama attack either nation should he get a second term? Neither of us know.
----------

Would that be a good thing?

Depends upon the circumstances.
----------

Obama is anticlimatic as a politician.

I think he has been an utter disaster for America.
----------

I highly doubt he would do any major changes to gun-laws. Even after all these shootings, I did see nothing more than rhetoric.

I think the moment he gets a second term, he will pull out the stops on trying to get new gun control measures passed. When those are blocked in Congress, he will use his EO powers.

So far, we have seen the restrained Obama who had something to lose; reelection. If he gets reelected, we will see the unrestrained Obama with nothing to lose.

[LineDoggie]

Some facts about this Priorities USA pac

Official PAC Name:
PRIORITIES USA ACTION
Location: 1101 15TH STREET, NW
SECOND FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
Industry: DEMOCRATIC/LIBERAL
Treasurer: SPEED, GREG
FEC Committee ID: C00495861

OFFICIAL US GOV LINK-FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION
http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00495861

Bill Burton Former Obama Aide is head of this organization
Top Donors include

Morgan Freeman for 1 million dollars
Stephen Speilberg for 100K
Jeffrey Katzenburg for 2 Million Dollars
Bill Maher for 1 Million dollars

Dreamworks for 4 Million dollars
SEIU Union 1.5 Million dollars

[Rattfink]

After reading and responding to your posts for this long, which end of the political spectrum you inhabit is not in question. It is interesting, though, how so many left-leaning people view themselves as 'centrist' or 'moderate'.

That's becaus eso manuy people in the extremes on both sides view moderates as being far removed from them. I have had my politics described as being "Bleeding heart liberal" and "Fascist, just right of Attilla the Hun." I guess its all a matter of perspective. As combative as politics has become it seems anyone who isn't as far one side as you must be the opposite extreme. Go figure.

[LineDoggie]

I can remember back to Nixon running for president. I've seen some wild and weird campaign claims and commercials.

Never have I seen such a Blatant Lie as this commercial from any side before. To accuse Romeny of letting a woman die & Falsely is pretty fcuking dispicable. Even more so when you KNEW the Charges were false and still went with it. Have you No Shame Obama? Have you no shame Democrats? at long last?

[Hexer]

Sure. Which facts are wrong? He was a corporal, wasn't he?

Are you trying to appear witty?

Weimar Republic? Does it ring a bell? Revolution of 1848? Or how about the democratic movements in the GDR?

Your posts imply that your only knowledge of German history amounts to a full 12 years. Well fücking done

[riderboy]

As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government ever - except for any other. Call it what you will, it's the best we have and it seems to work most of the time. Your German government, IIRC, was formed after a very bloody period in the early 40's known as WW 2. Your government was a gift from the Allies, the German people themselves having come up quite a bit short when left to their own devices.

Witty? Moi? Since you didn't answer my question about which facts I got wrong, which were none, I repeat the above. One cannot form a new government unless the old government is done away with, which is exactly what the allies did. Perhaps a minor detail to you, but not to the thousands of dead Americans who did it. I could care less about the Wiemar Republic, the GDR or 1848. Criticize our political process if you wish, but the recent political past of your own country could use some as well.

[Ozzy[NO]]

Criticize our political process if you wish, but the recent political past of your own country could use some as well.

Check your calendar, it's 2012

[Hexer]

Witty? Moi? Since you didn't answer my question about which facts I got wrong, which were none, I repeat the above. One cannot form a new government unless the old government is done away with, which is exactly what the allies did. Perhaps a minor detail to you, but not to the thousands of dead Americans who did it. I could care less about the Wiemar Republic, the GDR or 1848. Criticize our political process if you wish, but the recent political past of your own country could use some as well.

I quite like your definition of recent. I take it the Kennedy assassination is breaking news to you?

Furthermore I think I have to rephrase a bit, you didn't get your facts wrong, you just ignorantly failed to acknowledge certain facts. Such as those I pointed out to you in regards to German democratic movements. And now you even continue to do it.

In addition to this, if you recall my original post, you know before you went full retard with the nazi remarks, you will see that I criticized the way in which way these campaigns are led. Wonder what your take on this is.