SarasotaSabre

here's a few more....95 more to be exact - but I don't think any of these have been diligently followed & reported by our stellar media as I am sure they would if Barry was a Repub = WHAT A SHOCK ! http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/here-are-95-examples-of-barack-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption-and-cronyism/ But what the hell, let's create a distraction by focusing on a Mitt donor speech in which he candidly spoke out against going after an electorate who has absolutely NO incentive to vote for anyone other than BHO ....

No that's just the first objection I have to think great community organizer. In chief...I have plenty more to come.

as opposed to the current usurper in chief who cannot function without a teleprompter ? no thanks, I'll pass .....

Sure, if you're on that side of the fence it's a nice little bounce. ...I think credit should be given where it truly belongs- to those Hollywood actresses who gave such an intellectual tour de force....)))

Thank you, I did go back and read the NYT article you posted. I agree in that it was valuable to read a different angle per the NYT book review. In hindsight I don't think it was fair for me to compare the quality of one publication to another.

I would beg to differ that the quality is so drastic, unless one equates overarching bias with quality. My objective was not to highlight the editorial commentary of the article but rather to draw attention to the book and its' cited quotes/content

regardless of one's stance politically, this book looks like a must-read by a respected writer, Bob Woodward.....a devastating account of Obama's administration. http://washingtonexaminer.com/woodwards-devastating-account-of-obamas-failed-leadership/article/2507195#.UEtvq6MsTAl

no, I see the greater point - is the health and welfare of women in this country code for free contraception and abortion on demand? if not, please do tell me what the Dems pro-women plank does involve. And the Dems plucked her from Georgetown (how coincidental, a pro-choice zealot at a Jesuit university - wow, I never would have thought of the irony) to lead with a wedge issue (free birth control paid for by the Politburo). So they led with it and continue to make her the face of the franchise at the DNC.

the fact that the Dems have selected Fluke as a poster child for one of their central tenets is laughable in itself. Pretty sad, actually, that we are having to listen to one woman's crusade for birth control entitlement when we have alot more pressing needs at home, i.e., people losing jobs and homes.

Wow....Brutal Do you also believe in the "right" to murder an infant born alive after a failed abortion?

well said Thanes, well said....another example of the double standard of the Left worldview. It's never OK for a Rightwinger to group people (....or better yet, an entire region) according to their religion/race/politics/values because that would be HAAAATE speech, but it's perfectly OK for the Left to do so; and, for extra shock value, let's talk about going after "run away slaves", right? Wait a minute, Uncle Joe had no problem claiming Romney's economic policies would "put y'all back in chains" - but, again, that's Crazy Uncle Joe just being Joe, right....? Unless, of course, DeLuca was just throwing absolute irony & witty sarcasm at us that we just fell for...... :wallbash:

You're almost funny - stuck in 1863 I see

THIS ...... +1 can you imagine if a Republican made the "back in chains" comment to an audience with a lot of African Americans present?.....ohhhh, the horror from the MSM. But, no, because it's crazy Uncle Joe, they let his crap slide by like it never happened...just Joe being Joe, right? I am so freaking tired of the double standards displayed by our "watchdog" media.

With all due respect I don't think you have comprehended my first post followed by my follow up points of clarification. My main point in my first post was that the overwhelming majority of posters on this subject were taking the Democratic stance on this position while ignoring the obvious cases of Democratic abuse of the voting system with specific examples I pointed out. I then proceeded in my subsequent to point out the reality of fraud/abuse on both sides of the aisle which underscores my opinion that voter ID reform needs to happen i order to remove one big flaw/variable in our system. I also mentioned on more than 1 occasion that both parties address this issue with ulterior motives in play. In summary, as objective as I have tried to be, I don't see how you can call me biased and question my motivation.

That is pretty uncalled for; flippant, condescending, and rude to boot. I made my case as objectively as I could that I believe there is an ulterior motive by both parties in the US to explicitly or tacitly affect the implementation or non-implementation of voter ID laws.....so tell me, o enlightened one, how do my opinions make me naive ? Any yes, you are right - I don't care what your place in the political spectrum is and I am not trying to peg you. I also don't care where you are from.

then I stand corrected, my apologies. My point is that I think it is disenguous for anyone to proclaim it is only the Repubs' menace for seeking to enforce these laws with an ulterior motive. It is the same ulterior motive which motivates Dems to oppose any reform of voter ID law. Both parties have an ulterior motive in play and, as you say, it should be easy to connect the dots. and I echo K-9's applause of you being refreshingly honest.

And why is it that the Democrats are chronically absent from any reformation of the voter ID laws? Because they have too much to lose with those Democratic voters who would be "disenfranchised" by such efforts. I pointed out fraud/abuse on both sides and was objective in doing so. Just because you are on the opposite end of the political spectrum does not make me intellectually dishonest. Typcally leftist to only see your side of the argument. Any critical thinking would point to the Democrats aggressively trying to retain the inner city vote by not agreeing to any efforts on voter ID enforcement. But why should critical thinking come into play when one has a clear agenda and worldview ?

Your injection of the race card as it pertains to the enforcement/non-enforcement of the voter ID laws is a complete non sequitur, IMHO. And, yes, thank you for acknoweldging that race is not an issue for me....it is not. I could care less if Obama is white, black, brown, purple, yellow, or green....it is his policies, practices, and philosophies that I have a big problem with. But that is a different topic for another day.

Your response is a very predictable one and I could have predicted it before I hit POST. I would not even call your reply a rebuttal, it is so weak. You don't know me from Adam and you are calling me dishonest? Re-read my post and tell me how I am not being honest. That takes some chutzpah and I resent it, quite frankly. When all else fails, play the race card, right? I could give a flying F _ CK what color Obama is; in fact, I don't care WHO is President, I want voter ID laws enforced, plain & simple. Too much chicanery and outright fraud. You & I do agree on the need for an overhaul of our voting system. It is 2013, yes, and we can and should do better.

I find it very disturbing that the majority of posts concerning the voter ID issue are speaking from the Democratic/Left POV. This issue is clearly one that is two-sided and historically has been. Why is that all of you who proclaim that the the enforcement of voter ID laws is nothing more than the evil Republicans seeking to "disenfranchise the minority vote"? This is a specious & intellectually dishonest argument. There is fraud & abuse on both sides all with the goal of winning elections & power. What about documented cases of Democratic blocs enabling deceased, fictitious names, multiple voters, pet names, illegal immigrants, (oops, "undocumented workers") etc? And the case before our Attorney General (who won't prosecute the case) of Black Pantthers with billy clubs standing menacingly a voting location intimidating would-be Republicans voters.? My point is that voting fraud/abuse occurs in wholesale fashion, and the enforcement of voter ID laws means there is one less variable which cannot be managed and should level the playing field for all ELIGIBLE voters. But if you must rant about the enforcement of voter ID law being a plot of the Republicans to steal the election because it makes you feel better, then at least try to show a shred of honesty & objectivity.

+ 1 +1

Your response is thoughtful & well-written; actually it is a refreshing change to the sometimes caustic, bomb-throwing language which gets exchanged on this Board when it comes to opposing viewpoints on political discourse. My intention with regard to point #1 was not to imply that Ryan is running vs. Obama; he obviously he is not and I did not think I needed to make that distinction. What I didn't articulate, however, is how Ryan's style & substance, relying on facts and less on rhetoric, has already and will continue to serve as an effective catalyst to deliver Romney's message & vision - like it or not, Ryan was a good choice to for this role. I say this in part because Romney has admittedly been a less than stellar communicator and has been deemed by many critics as stiff as less than engaging/personable. Ryan will be an effective antidote to this, in my opinion.....youthful, positive, driven, pragmatic. With regard to point #2, my point was not to get into a semantic debate over the word "ideologue". I will concede the point that one's voting record is the primary gauge of one's measurement as an ideologue. I would, however, like to point out Ryan's ability/desire to work with the opposition to develop bipartisan solutions, with the Ryan-Wyden reform efforts being a prime example. I was also trying to expand the conversation to extend the concept of ideology beyond only one's voting record. My other thought on point #2 is that it seems to me that no other Presidential election cycle has presented the American voter with as stark & pronounced of a contract as Romney/Ryan vs. Obama/Biden. Yes the stakes are high, and the differences on all major points are painfully obvious to see. As such, it is incrementally easier to brand Ryan an ideologue just as effortlessly as the Right has & will continue to brand BHO as an ideologue. Neither side has or will bend or temper their core beliefs to assuage the centrist view of our political landscape. In this regard, the typical D or R candidate who has successfully try to morph his vision/platform into the "mushy middle" will arguably not be able to do so this November, since the differences are so genuinely opposite, thus leaving the 5-15% of undecided voters truly undecided.

1) The point I am trying to make is that Obama based his entire campaign on a fluffy mantra of "hope & change" with little substance and specifics to back that slogan up. Ryan, OTOH, has demonstrated a lengthy record of empirical, metric-driven, factual solutions combined with an honest, heartfelt desire to improve America for ALL Americans. I would point you to YouTube to fully appreciate Ryan's candor and demonstrable command of how things need to be changed/fixed; not only does he have the courage to say "Mr. President, we have a problem", but he he has clearly articulated how he would propose fixing it 2) Your decision to define an ideologue strictly based on one's voting record is unfairly narrow; an ideologue is also defined as an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology. As such, legislative compromise is out of the question when ideologues dominate both sides of the aisle. Tell me, is the Ryan-Wyden (Wyden = D-OR) plan for Medicare reform even possible when one party in that plan (Ryan) is as staunchly ideologue as you make him out to be ?

hmmm, sounds curiously like someone else we know..... :blink: A few differences: 1. Ryan does not speak in lofty, fluffy platitudes like "hope & change"; he actually speaks in data-driven, pragmatic language that is solutions-based 2. Although exceeding the criteria for Conservatism, he is not an ideologue; unlike Obama, Ryan has demonstrated the ability to work with the opposition to get things done, not blame the other side for blocking and play the class envy card ad nauseum. 3. he is articulate without a teleprompter ..(sorry, I could not resist). These difference make Ryan a solid choice for Romney. Because the Obama & the left cannot run on their record, the playbook calls for FUD (fear, uncertainty, & doubt) that Ryan will push Grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair. Axelrod has already started this canard and the Dems will not honestly portray Ryan's positions. My only fear is that the Obama war chest will spout the dishonest onslaught tied to the politics of personal destruction, as this is the only strategy the Dems can even think of running on. Can't wait to the Ryan vs. Biden debate though - that is, if Biden doesn't find a way to get out of the debate.

I very obviously did not intend to provoke any negative responses with my choice to insert the word "follies" into my description of the book I am reading. I can't prevent your interpretation as such. I was merely trying to convey the context of the book's content, but in hindsight I can say that context is easily explained only by the title w/out the need for me to add any descriptions. Anyway, have a great day .....