On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:09:21 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:15:22 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...


"Disgust" is your sensationalized version of what's happening. On
the left, we consider it discourse, dissent, a challenge to do the
right thing.

On the right it's considered unpatriotic, sedition or appeasement.




Thanks for bringing this subject up. I don't agree with you.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

If the right were upset with Obama about following the course of Bush
on wiretapping, the left wouldn't jump up and claim the right is
guilty of being unpatriotic or guilty of sedition, bringing comfort to
the enemy.

This is exactly what we experienced when questioning Bush/Cheney
policies and decisions.

Think about pre-emptive war and how the left was berated for not
buying into this stupid tactic that's going to smell a lot like ****
when it hits our face.

We're already experiencing other countries spitting at us when we
attempt to temper their inhumane actions. "Who are you to tell us
what to do, you've occupied a country and tortured its citizens."


Sorry. Old news, over and over. The left continues to dismiss the fact
that most of them were also trumpeting the call for war, many even to
Clinton before Georgie boy even came upon the scene. You know, it's the "I
was against it after I was for it" routine.

This isn't the royal we I'm referring to. I experienced it first
hand. Many of those discussions were right here in rec.boats.

I argued against it as did most on the left. We were told we were
unpatriotic, guilty of sedition and aiding and comforting the enemy by
voicing dissent.

Your attempt to depersonalize it won't work.

But seriously, it sure seems like President Obama is quite different than
Candidate Obama in some significant ways. He's still addressing campaign
promises (politically good for him and the party) but the details of his
policies, particularly in non-domestic areas are becoming surprisingly more
like those of Bush and Co.

Only those who saw him as an unmitigated liberal were under such
delusions. Those of us who understood who he was while campaigning
understood that he was and is a moderate. Those who didn't actually
pay attention and just listed to the rhetoric may now be surprised but
very few who were paying attention are surprised.

My support of him was based on the fact that he would be smart enough
to govern closer to the center, as Clinton had done. Those of us who
watched Clinton also watched some of our issues get trampled but
understood that, in getting things done, compromise was necessary.

You are apparently among the surprised.

There's a backlash brewing. The "TEA" party joke does have one lasting
thread to it.
The public does not appreciate the secret manner in which bailouts are being
handled by his administration. Too much money being forced into the wrong
hands, in their opinion.

That's just the message you picked up that resonated. There was a
whole host of themes the protesters fielded.

I think this may come back to bite him in the rear in 2010 and then possibly
2012 unless he changes course a bit, listens to the natives, or gives one
humdinger of a speech explaining why the banks and Wall Street deserve all
the tax payer's money he is giving them. Oh, and one other bite.
Money gained by federal tax relief being bantered about so much for 95
percent of taxpayers is becoming fairy tale as states scramble to increase
taxes on everything from gas to beer in an attempt to raise money. Whatever
the 95 percent gained on one hand is going out on the other.

Everyone who gets a paycheck as seen their take home pay go up. Every
state, county and city is having to belt tighten which isn't being
chalked up to Obama. It's being chalked up to Bush, deregulation and
greedy assholes on Wall Street.

That Obama has to prop these whores up to ensure recovery is the
downside of having won the election.

People have a very practical way of evaluating things like this. If you
are going to hand banks their money, they deserve to know who needs it and
who doesn't. The secret manner in which it is being done is bothering a
lot of people, including some of the banks.

It's now coming out how Paulson pulled a fast one with the initial
funds the Bush Admin put into place.

The controls have stiffened significantly since and more are going
into effect now. Once the investments start coming back, Obama may be
seen as a savior in 2010 and 2012.

The R's are still the party of no, haven't any ideas beyond sustaining
tax cuts for the wealthy.