In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation – referring to those who wholly support their party’s policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figureheads (presidents), decisions, and even location.
In the United States, “partisan” has come to refer to an individual with a psychological identification with one or the other of the major parties.
“I have no objection. Let the electorate see the real reason a lot of republicans oppose Obama.”
I shouldn’t be offended since I’m not a Republican, but I do oppose Obama and don’t think that comment reflects well on me and most who have and are speaking out on today’s issues. The TeaParty was vocal about fiscal responsibility and was called racist. Please, let the electorate see the real reason a lot of democrats support Obama. The price of gasoline alone is issue enough to call for his being thrown out. He railed against Bush when oil prices spiked, by his own words and standards, Obama should be thrown out of office. He is constantly attacking the “fat cats” on WallStreet while showing compassion for the man on the street suffering thru these hard times. But who is more responsible for those hard times, WallStreet or OvalStreet? The guy in the oval office, wearing out our printing presses with “qualitative easing”. How much has the value of the dollar dropped since he took office? WallStreet didn’t cause that and the decrease in what you can buy for a dollar. The one defense I will offer for WallStreet is at least they are honest in what they seek, it’s all about the money!
HOWARD STERN: Who should be the next President of the United States Elle MacPherson, go ahead.
ELLE MACPHERSON: I think Obama’s going to do it.
STERN: You like Obama?
MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?(1)
The jobs-killing Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and employers. Many of these tax increases fall on families making less than $250,000 — a direct violation of candidate Obama’s promise not to raise “any form” of taxes on these families. This Friday marks the second anniversary of Obamacare being signed into law. The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare next week.
Out of the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare, there are four that most hurt young adults and children. Every single one of these taxes violates President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise any form of taxes on families making less than $250,000.(oops, sorry, new ‘puter just erased instead of copied. Source was the Daily Caller)
A sad truth to me, Obama did tell us what he hoped to do, the masses just heard what they wanted, with no thought to the cost. I talk to a wide variety of people, and even the poor blacks are unhappy with the high gas prices. They tell me they are not sure if they will vote for Obama again, or don’t answer.
Before catapulting to prominence, the president complained that thanks to constraints instituted by our Founders, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice.” Obama’s justice ensures not that transactions are freely entered and fairly measured, but that bureaucrats enforce results fancied per the fluttering fashions of political correctness.
Still, most Americans would deny Obama’s Marxist outlook, mistaking the term’s meaning as synonymous with Stalin or Mao. Marxist theory informed many of history’s most murderous tyrants, but Obama’s brand is the emasculated theorizing of the faculty lounge. He neither intends similar mayhem nor has such means in our constitutional republic.
Further confusion revolves around textbook definitions as production remains primarily private. We still exhibit generally free markets, although our economic liberty rapidly erodes. If socialism connotes complete public ownership of society’s productive infrastructure, and capitalism represents purely private property with minimal state interference, then few examples of either exist. (4)
“(T)he macro estimate was essential to Boehner; he needed it to make the argument that a decent chunk of the additional revenue could come through growth and stepped-up compliance, and thus Congress wouldn’t need to actually raise anybody’s rates to get it done. Boehner left that Sunday meeting convinced that Geithner, in particular, understood and accepted this condition.
But in his counteroffer, Obama had reversed the formulation so that the tax revenue figure – now at $1.16 trillion – would be the minimum that rewriting the code could achieve (a floor), rather than a maximum (a ceiling). With a slight turn of phrase, he rejected Boehner’s entire premise that growth could be counted on to deliver some of the revenue. (did it again, this is from American Thinker)
There are Republicans out there that would vote for George Zimmerman if he were in the primary! And there are Democrats who will vote for Obama and never question if he’s right or wrong by their personal beliefs. There are also true “Progressives”, who in MHO, are trying to walk us down the path to socialism. I don’t see the extremists on the right having as much sway, but could be blinded by my own bias. What about liberal bias? Do you assume ignorance rather than look in the mirror? If you believe in AGW and think we must drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels, are we going about it in the right way? Seems to me even if you force the USA to stop, China and India will simply surpass us and the earth continues on its path while we give up our way of life? China has dropped most of their green energy projects and has scaled up their coal use and imports. Is it OK to mine coal in the US if it is exported to China?