Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How come it is only when your party is in power that you're supposed "to be loyal to your nation and your leader", but when the other party is in charge it is your duty as an American to oppose that leader?
This goes out to both Republicans and Democrats. During the Bush years I saw every Democrat on here whining and complaining about anything Bush did (even the non-retarded things). Now, that they are in power, anyone who criticizes the President is basically anti-American.
Originally posted by momonkey
Wow, who pee'd on your cornflakes?
The resistance to Bush was legitimate because....his policies were somehow different than the polices BO is following?
Fact is Obama is only president BECAUSE he's a Halfrican-American running around with his race on his sleeve (when it suits his purpose).
And that nondescript hopey-changey nonsense didn't move anyone I know.
The resistance to Obama started before he became president because the adults in the room saw him for what he was, a liar.
BO came into office with the good will of white America and has lost support faster than any president in the history of the republic because people are able to discern that he is a liar.
The "stimulus" that written by the Apollo Alliance was a giant payoff to supporters that created few jobs and will harm the economy in the years to come. The whole thing was a scam and everyone with the IQ of an ice cube knows that. He told us it was going to create jobs. That makes him a liar.
He blamed Bush and McCain for the deregulation that caused the subprime melt-down while he was still on the payroll of Fannie and Freddie (behind only Chris Dodd). He did this knowing that Bush formally requested GSE oversight reform in 2003 and McCain co-sponsored S.190 which was passed out of committee on a party line vote only to meet with a threatened Democrat filibuster. Even with those facts firmly implanted in his memory, he looked into the cameras and blamed others for the crisis he and other Democrats created. He is either an Alzheimer patient or he is a liar.
No, you could say he's sincere but wrong, or mistaken and that would be fine. But you want to think he's a liar because you and the ilk on your side need a reason to hate the president. You want to think the worst because you hate him. You guys have ever since he was the nominee. You guys never had any good will for him. Only white hot hatred.
Saggy, saggy, saggy, how soon we forget....that the dems and obama were pushing to get that bill passed BEFORE the August recess and then things started falling apart. They would have done it if they could, but the outcry from the populace was thunderous.
You're perhaps confused as between July and August. The scoring that you meanwhile sought to make something out of was of the version referred to the relevant House committees for markup. Useful information in furthering the legisaltive process if you happen to be a legislator. Due to its transience, not so much so for those having nothing whatsoever to do with that process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Based on obama's budget and the CBO projections, it most certainly will come true. What would change the path?
The same thing that wiped out the $5+ trillion projected surplus that Clinton left to Bush -- events not yet transpired, and legislation not yet passed. Once again, projections are not at all either meant or useful as predictions, and they certainly impose no constraints at all upon the future. You only reveal here once again how truly flawed your understanding of the matter is.
Last edited by saganista; 09-27-2009 at 05:19 AM..
. . . Whenever the radical right go to media events carrying signs that show Obama as Hitler or a tribal African the republicans say it is just a few minorities and not representative. But you never hear the republican mouthpeices come out and say this type of demonstrating is wrong and tell the radicals to stop. The silence of the mainstream republicans in not condemning the radicals speak volumes.
Any more than you heard Democratic mouthpieces coming out and saying painting, say, President Lips II as a Nazi was wrong. The silence of the mainstream Democrats in not condemning that spoke volumes enough, too. (President Lips II had problems enough, including but not limited to his having forgotten, on the assumption that he ever really knew, that Edward R. Murrow was right when he said, "We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom---what's left of it in the world---but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.")
The silence of both parties---so far as disabusing enough Americans of the idea that the State is the alpha and the omega of solving every last problem known to mankind, whether or not the State is competent or Constitutionally sanctioned to do so---is even more deafening.
So far as I'm concerned, government is the nation's largest organised crime family. And has been for years enough. Trusting government to undo what it has largely done toward becoming the nation's number one public nuisance is comparable to trusting Bonnie and Clyde to solve the banking crisis.
Let the record show that just because a man wins an election it does not mean he becomes immune to criticism. Funny, though, how each party throws that one out the window when it's the other party who gets elected. (Isn't it remarkable how politics finds so many suddenly channeling their inner children?) Never mind that the Republican Party has this amazing habit of proving P.J. O'Rourke to have been right when he wrote that Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
Fair disclosure: I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'd like to say I'm a member of the Surprise Party, but a) the party died before I was born, with Gracie Allen's 1940 presidential campaign (she said she didn't know much about the Lend-Lease Bill but if we owed it, we should pay it); and, b) I have a real problem thinking of political parties when everyone knows that, whatever else they are or represent, it's no party and we'll cry if we want to. I live in a state where you can only vote for "none of the above," so I was denied my right to vote in the last election for Groucho Marx, on three solid grounds:
1) I'm a staunch believer in Artemus Ward's maxim that if you can't find a live man (or woman, for that matter) who amounts to anything, by all means let's have a first class corpse.
2) Groucho Marx himself said, "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and misapplying the wrong solutions." Name me one expression of comparable wisdom to come from the mouth of either Lame McCain (the man who thinks his pets---all named Peeve, thank you Mr. Safire---deserve government attention) or His Excellency Al Hotseat Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT . . .
3) If the dead can vote in Chicago, the living in Nevada (or elsewhere) should be able to vote for the dead.
One possible explanation... Obama represents what in the military they called "shave a s s es". He went to an elite school, and got ahead because of it, bypassing a lot the pain folks that had to work during those years of their life went through while trying to establish a life. Probably one part jealousy and one part indignation. Jealous of his leapfroging. Indignant that their hard work wasn't rewarded as highly.
Leapfrogging? WTF! What prevented your plain folks and military pals from attending Harvard and becoming editor of the Law Review? What kept them from campaigning for and winning election to their state and then the US Senate? Did they all just sit around and let this less worthy Obama guy somehow slip past them undeservedly in the night, or was there something more to it than that?
Feel free to google the Conference on National Reconciliation in Somalia. Feel free to recall as well that those were not exactly happy times for US/UN relations due in part to repeated incidents of verbal and financial hostility on the part of the Reagan/Bush-41 team. And Somalia was a UN operation from top to bottom. While American troops remained under American command, it was the UN calling the shots and setting the agenda. Remember when Boutros-Ghali said that US troops would leave Somalia only when he said they could? Probably not...it was a long time ago now, and people forget. Some even prefer to. In any case, while a request for more armor had been placed just before the ill-fated mission in Mogadishu, it had been turned down (at the Pentagon, not the White House) because the mission in Somalia was supposed to be winding down, not growing. Very well-armed troops were meanwhile available (including the ones who eventually effected the rescue), but the brass had made a decision to send a lightly-equipped rapid-insertion team in to do a search-and-destroy mission. The tactic had worked before, but not in broad daylight in a situation of a wall-to-wall urban-guerilla conflict. The mission as designed was highly susceptible to anything at all going wrong, and unfortunately, two things did. Result = fiasco. In any case, the whole affair was Bush-41's doing as he hoped to go out of office on a legacy-securing high note of humanitarian achievement. Clinton then inherited a quagmire of acrimony and poor coordination and planning and did the best he could to make some sense of it for as long as he had to. To his credit, he did not repeat Reagan's Beirut blunder of ten years earlier when things went awry, remaining in Somalia for six addditional months to engineer a calculated withdrawl and turnover to the UN. That's a Cliff Notes version of events, of course. But still a much better one than what you have tried to pass off.
How come it is only when your party is in power that you're supposed "to be loyal to your nation and your leader", but when the other party is in charge it is your duty as an American to oppose that leader?
This goes out to both Republicans and Democrats. During the Bush years I saw every Democrat on here whining and complaining about anything Bush did (even the non-retarded things). Now, that they are in power, anyone who criticizes the President is basically anti-American.
1. True patriots criticize their government when they think that government is wrong regardless of whom is in power. Naturally, when the opposition is in power, the other side is going to be critical of more policies than when their own party is in power.
2. People who oppose Obama are anti-American? That's said pretty much tongue-in-check when said by someone mocking the righties.. Clearly it continues to be the Democrats/liberals/lefties -- including Obama -- who are continually being strapped to the anti-American label by the righties. You can read posts that say as much in just about every thread in this forum.
The resistance to Bush was legitimate because....his policies were somehow different than the polices BO is following?
Just a reminder that Obama has not rammed through any economy-destroying tax cuts for the rich, not lied to the nation and the world to justify any costly and disastrous foreign wars of choice, not deliberately dismissed the ideas of either allies or rivals abroad, not sat idly by while a signature American city was being destroyed, not broken the terms of treaty after treaty by kidnapping and torturing people, not gutted any environmental laws or routinely corrupted regulatory agencies by filling them with industry lobbyists, not sought to suppress science nor single out any group of Americans for second-class citizenship, not heeded messages received from God as to whom to attack and not attack, and not walked away from any emerging financial disasters in hopes of being able to dump them into the lap of any successor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Fact is Obama is only president BECAUSE he's a Halfrican-American running around with his race on his sleeve (when it suits his purpose). And that nondescript hopey-changey nonsense didn't move anyone I know.
Fact is that Obama is President because Hope and Change were made the only viable options by eight years of utter and continuous disgrace and failure perpetrated upon the nation by a hopelessly inept and corrupt band of right-wingers and neocons. Under the circumstances, Maverick and Moonbat were hardly a credible alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The resistance to Obama started before he became president because the adults in the room saw him for what he was, a liar.
Those who hate according to party label and still take the essentials of what they believe to be their thinking directly from the lies, deceits, and misrepresentations of the right-wing disinformation media did not have a capacity to follow any other path. The coefficient of the Obama variable in their equation of rabid opposition was zero. These are anything but the adults in the room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
BO came into office with the good will of white America and has lost support faster than any president in the history of the republic because people are able to discern that he is a liar.
So those who can't stand lying are flocking now to the side of those who preach about "death panels", promote budgets without numbers, and claim that 1.2 million people attended the 912/DC rally? How sensible of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The "stimulus" that written by the Apollo Alliance was a giant payoff to supporters that created few jobs and will harm the economy in the years to come. The whole thing was a scam and everyone with the IQ of an ice cube knows that. He told us it was going to create jobs. That makes him a liar.
That's an interesting if entirely inaccurate and unsupported analysis. You yourself are receiving tax cuts under ARRA and every analysis shows that it will save or create quite substantial numbers of jobs. Odd that you apparently haven't come across any of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
He blamed Bush and McCain for the deregulation that caused the subprime melt-down while he was still on the payroll of Fannie and Freddie (behind only Chris Dodd). He did this knowing that Bush formally requested GSE oversight reform in 2003 and McCain co-sponsored S.190 which was passed out of committee on a party line vote only to meet with a threatened Democrat filibuster.
The GSE's had virtually nothing to do with creation of the credit crisis, and there were no Republican calls for "oversight" that were not merely attempts to drive the GSE's out of secondary mortgage market share so that the cowboy capitalists on Wall Street (the people who actually did cause the crisis) could take that over. S.190 was never filibustered or threatened with a filibuster. The Republican leadership simply declined to bring it to the floor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Even with those facts firmly implanted in his memory, he looked into the cameras and blamed others for the crisis he and other Democrats created. He is either an Alzheimer patient or he is a liar.
It is you who fairly wallows in untruths and various other forms of non-reality. You insult the past, the present, and the future with what are your mere imaginations.
The same thing that wiped out the $5+ trillion projected surplus that Clinton left to Bush -- events not yet transpired, and legislation not yet passed. Once again, projections are not at all either meant or useful as predictions, and they certainly impose no constraints at all upon the future. You only reveal here once again how truly flawed your understanding of the matter is.
Saggy, saggy, now you're really spinning. Tell me, what event(s) will reduce/wipe out a $9 trillion deficit? Spending cuts? Massive tax hikes? Increased revenue?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
