Democrats gut Bush policies in spending bill

[red states rule]

Dems are drunk with power, and are showing how they want to reshape America the way the think it should look

Dems are not running short on new ways to spend taxpayer money on insane liberal priorities


Democrats gut Bush policies in spending bill


http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2008/12/21/20081220-211303-pic-97747234_r350x200.jpg?0babd24c675f3097b9d1ff106ec8 653055db7939


Democrats, freed from former President George W. Bush's veto threats, are gutting the previous administration's programs with funding cuts and policy changes in the omnibus spending bill that the House passed Wednesday.

From including language to "consider" government health care benefits for same-sex domestic partners of federal workers to eliminating D.C. school vouchers, which they consider an affront to the public school system, Democrats say there are plenty of wrongs to right in Mr. Bush's wake.

The pork-laden bill also slashes funds for abstinence education and erases language prohibiting a "fairness doctrine" law that threatens to squelch conservative talk radio.

"There's a lot of damage to repair ... and I'm dying to get it done," said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee. "We're trying to get back in the 21st century here."

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, said the omnibus was merely a first step. He said the spending bill would be followed soon by expanded funding for stem-cell research and a hate crimes law.

"You'll see more of it ... where our winning will make change for the better," Mr. Frank said. "That's what happens when you have an election and one side wins and the other side loses."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/democrats-use-omnibus-to-eviscerate-bush-policies/

[PostmodernProphet]

"There's a lot of damage to repair ... and I'm dying to get it done," said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee.

a glimmer of hope?.......

[red states rule]

a glimmer of hope?.......

I you are a member of the protected and pampered groups Dems plan to shower with "free" money taken from the producers

[moderate democrat]

"You'll see more of it ... where our winning will make change for the better," Mr. Frank said. "That's what happens when you have an election and one side wins and the other side loses."

bingo.

losing sucks, doesn't it, RSR?:poke:

[Kathianne]

Well they won and will certainly change things for years to come. Whether or not the American people feel good in 2010 will determine how far they can go, but there's a lot that will be done in the next two years, regardless. He did promise 'change' and that is going to happen. Emanuel made clear, 'never let a crisis be wasted...':

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561433557778201.html


A Radical Presidency
By DANIEL HENNINGER

When Barack Obama delivered his 44-minute acceptance speech in August among the majestic columns of Denver, it was apparent his would be an expansive presidency. Some wondered whether his solutions for a very long list of problems was too ambitious. On Tuesday, before Congress, he made clear across 52 minutes that the economic downturn would not deflect him from his Denver vision.

Instead, the economic crisis, as it did for Franklin D. Roosevelt, will serve as a stepping stone to a radical shift in the relationship between the people and their government. It will bind Americans to their government in ways not experienced since the New Deal. This tectonic shift, if successful, will be equal to the forces of public authority set in motion by Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The Obama presidency is going to be a radical presidency.

Barack Obama is proposing that the U.S. alter the relationship between the national government and private sector that was put in place by Ronald Reagan and largely continued by the presidencies of Bill Clinton and the Bushes. Then, the private sector led the economy. Now Washington will chart its course....

[red states rule]

"You'll see more of it ... where our winning will make change for the better," Mr. Frank said. "That's what happens when you have an election and one side wins and the other side loses."

bingo.

losing sucks, doesn't it, RSR?:poke:

Yea, I remember how great life was when Carter and Co ran DC and went drunk on power

Now Carter is back and on track to DOUBLE the national debt in record time

What sucks is watching people stand in line with their hand out expecting to help themselves to toher peoples money

and people like you who see nothing wrong with it - and cheer both Dems and the beggers on to even more spending and handouts

[moderate democrat]

Yea, I remember how great life was when Carter and Co ran DC and went drunk on power

Now Carter is back and on track to DOUBLE the national debt in record time

What sucks is watching people stand in line with their hand out expecting to help themselves to toher peoples money

and people like you who see nothing wrong with it - and cheer both Dems and the beggers on to even more spending and handouts


I guess you guys should have run a better slate of candidates...or had a better message.

Guess you know what you need to work on in the future!:poke:

[PostmodernProphet]

I you are a member of the protected and pampered groups Dems plan to shower with "free" money taken from the producers

actually, I was referring to the "dying" part......

[red states rule]

I guess you guys should have run a better slate of candidates...or had a better message.

Guess you know what you need to work on in the future!:poke:

Now there is a great way to justify Obama and Dems doing the same things you libs ranted about for the last 8 years

After years of massive spending increases Dems were outraged

Now the Dems are saying say "no, it's still not enough we must spend several trillion more."

[moderate democrat]

Now there is a great way to justify Obama and Dems doing the same things you libs ranted about for the last 8 years

After years of massive spending increases Dems were outraged

Now the Dems are saying say "no, it's still not enough we must spend several trillion more."

I have never complained about the fact that Bush spent money... I only objected to what he spent money ON. I like Obama's priorities a lot better than I liked Bush's.

[red states rule]

I have never complained about the fact that Bush spent money... I only objected to what he spent money ON. I like Obama's priorities a lot better than I liked Bush's.

Most people like you see military spending as a waste - while welfare is vital necessity

Libs want to keep people dependent on government, thus they can control them and rn their lives for them

[moderate democrat]

Most people like you see military spending as a waste - while welfare is vital necessity

Libs want to keep people dependent on government, thus they can control them and rn their lives for them

I don't see military spending as a waste....some certainly is, but overall, I am for a strong military.

I don't want to keep anyone dependent upon the government...

it seems to me that you really do nothing other than reguritate old anti-liberal slogans regardless of what anyone ever says....

[red states rule]

I don't see military spending as a waste....some certainly is, but overall, I am for a strong military.

I don't want to keep anyone dependent upon the government...

it seems to me that you really do nothing other than reguritate old anti-liberal slogans regardless of what anyone ever says....

Libs have clearly shown their distain for the military, and their desire to keep people dependent on government

Libs are constantly telling the masses ONLY government can improve their lives, and ONLY government can solve our economic issues

You are one of those drones who eat, sleep, and breathe Dem policies and talking points

[moderate democrat]

Libs have clearly shown their distain for the military, and their desire to keep people dependent on government

Libs are constantly telling the masses ONLY government can improve their lives, and ONLY government can solve our economic issues

You are one of those drones who eat, sleep, and breathe Dem policies and talking points


same old lines...aimed at no on in particular. I am for a strong military and I do not want to keep people dependent on government.

I will admit that some in my party are not as pro-military as I am...

but I defy you to bring one quote from any democrat where they state they they "DESIRE TO KEEP PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT". That is nothing but a well worn Rush talking point which you repeat and repeat ad nauseum.

[red states rule]

same old lines...aimed at no on in particular. I am for a strong military and I do not want to keep people dependent on government.

I will admit that some in my party are not as pro-military as I am...

but I defy you to bring one quote from any democrat where they state they they "DESIRE TO KEEP PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT". That is nothing but a well worn Rush talking point which you repeat and repeat ad nauseum.

The policies of the Dems keep people on dependent on government. Reid and Pelosi rolled back the Welfare Reform bill in their mega pork bill

They are extending unemployment beneifts which wil do nothing but keep people from getting a job

The more people on a governemnt program, the more money Dems can pump into the program. Which is the Dems primary objective in the first place

Again your claims fly in the face of facts and your blind support and glee of the Democrats

[moderate democrat]

The policies of the Dems keep people on dependent on government. Reid and Pelosi rolled back the Welfare Reform bill in their mega pork bill

They are extending unemployment beneifts which wil do nothing but keep people from getting a job

The more people on a governemnt program, the more money Dems can pump into the program. Which is the Dems primary objective in the first place

Again your claims fly in the face of facts and your blind support and glee of the Democrats


couldn't find any democrats who said that they "DESIRE TO KEEP PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT"????

why not just say so????:lol:

[red states rule]

couldn't find any democrats who said that they "DESIRE TO KEEP PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT"????

why not just say so????:lol:

Their policies make it so. That is where their power cvomes from. Keep the welfare checking coming every month, and you have a loyal Dem voter

Go ahead and ignore how Dem are pushing a nanny welfare state - it is all about your party and its power to you anyway

[moderate democrat]

Their policies make it so. That is where their power cvomes from. Keep the welfare checking coming every month, and you have a loyal Dem voter

Go ahead and ignore how Dem are pushing a nanny welfare state - it is all about your party and its power to you anyway

democrats do not want more people to be dependent upon government...for you to repeat that tired old Limbaugh talking point all the while accusing others of using talking points is yet another in a long line of classic examples of your hypocrisy and lack of intellectual originality.

[red states rule]

democrats do not want more people to be dependent upon government...for you to repeat that tired old Limbaugh talking point all the while accusing others of using talking points is yet another in a long line of classic examples of your hypocrisy and lack of intellectual originality.

Then why are Dems rolling back the welfare reform bill that put people to work and off the welfare rolls?

Dems are like the local drug dealer. They get you hooked, they control your life, and you look to them for your next fix. In this case, it is the next check from the government

[bullypulpit]

it seems to me that you really do nothing other than reguritate old anti-liberal slogans regardless of what anyone ever says....

Bingo! And, not only regardless of what anyone else says, but regardless of the facts. Can't let little things like facts stand in the way of Red and his fellow travelers mindless repetition of GOP talking points.

And then, there's the utter lack of anything resembling an original thought on the part of GOP leadership. Except, of course, to keep vomiting forth the same failed economic polices which led us to our current straights...Cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and deregulate the banking and finance industry.

[moderate democrat]

Then why are Dems rolling back the welfare reform bill that put people to work and off the welfare rolls?

Dems are like the local drug dealer. They get you hooked, they control your life, and you look to them for your next fix. In this case, it is the next check from the government

the welfare reform bill "put no one to work"... this economy is causing millions of Americans to lose their jobs. Congress is responding to that situation. Like I said... you roll out the same tired old Rush talking points even as you accuse others of using talking points. Hilarious!:lol:

[red states rule]

the welfare reform bill "put no one to work"... this economy is causing millions of Americans to lose their jobs. Congress is responding to that situation. Like I said... you roll out the same tired old Rush talking points even as you accuse others of using talking points. Hilarious!:lol:

As usual, the welfare rolls went down, and the employment rate went up. Remember, Bill Clinton signed the bill after the Republican Congress backed him into the corner

[red states rule]

Bingo! And, not only regardless of what anyone else says, but regardless of the facts. Can't let little things like facts stand in the way of Red and his fellow travelers mindless repetition of GOP talking points.

And then, there's the utter lack of anything resembling an original thought on the part of GOP leadership. Except, of course, to keep vomiting forth the same failed economic polices which led us to our current straights...Cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and deregulate the banking and finance industry.

This from the guy who cuts and ruins whenever he demands a link, and when it is provided he runs away faster then Jesse Owens

[red states rule]

As far as welfare reform NOT working

and now the Dems roll back the progress and have opened the doors to the US Treasury to fill the hands of as many people as possible with other peoples money


snip

So it seems a good time to remember the drama—make that melodrama—that the bill unleashed in 1996. Cries from Democrats of “anti-family,” “anti-child,” “mean-spirited,” echoed through the Capitol, as did warnings of impending Third World–style poverty: “children begging for money, children begging for food, eight- and nine-year-old prostitutes,” as New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg put it. “They are coming for the children,” Congressman John Lewis of Georgia wailed—“coming for the poor, coming for the sick, the elderly and disabled.” Congressman William Clay of Missouri demanded, “What’s next? Castration?” Senator Ted Kennedy called it “legislative child abuse,” Senator Chris Dodd, “unconscionable,” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan—in what may well be the lowest point of an otherwise miraculous career—“something approaching an Apocalypse.”


Other Washington bigwigs took up the cry. Marion Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund called the bill “national child abandonment” and likened it to the burning of Vietnamese villages. Immediately after President Clinton signed the bill, some of his top appointees quit in protest, including Edelman’s husband, Peter, who let loose with an article in The Atlantic Monthly titled, “The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done.” No less appalled, the Chicago Tribune seconded Congresswoman Carol Moseley Braun’s branding the bill an “abomination.” And while in 2004 the New York Times lauded the legislation as “one of the acclaimed successes of the past decade,” the editors seem to have forgotten that they were irately against it before they were for it, pronouncing it “draconian” and a “sad day for poor children.”

It’s worth recalling the outcry at this anniversary moment, not in order to have a gotcha-fest, pleasurable as such an exercise can be. The truth is that many of welfare reform’s promoters were not spot-on in their predictions, either, and their expectations require some Monday-morning quarterbacking, too. But the apocalyptic scaremongering of reform opponents on the one hand, and the relative benignity of the bill’s consequences on the other, prompt the obvious question: How is it that so many intelligent, well-intentioned people, including many experts who made up the late twentieth century’s Best and Brightest, were so mistaken—mistaken not just in the way a weatherman who overestimates the strength of a snowstorm is mistaken, but fundamentally, intrinsically, and epistemologically wrong?

Before examining why so many people were wrong, let’s look at exactly how they were wrong—an easy task, given the Everest of data on welfare reform’s aftermath. TANF did not include a federal jobs program for the poor—though many wanted it to—but it has ended up being a WPA for social scientists, who have been busily crunching just about every number that happened to wander anywhere near a welfare recipient for the past ten years.



http://www.city-journal.org/assets/images/16_2_01.jpg

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_welfare_reform.html

[PostmodernProphet]

democrats do not want more people to be dependent upon government...

can you explain then, why despite controlling the government for the majority of that time and devoting trillions of dollars to helping poor people in this country since the 1960s we have MORE people dependent on government now than we did then?......is it simply incompetence?......

[moderate democrat]

As usual, the welfare rolls went down, and the employment rate went up. Remember, Bill Clinton signed the bill after the Republican Congress backed him into the corner

and you think that the welfare reform caused the welfare rolls to go down and the employment rate to go up? Do you think that maybe the economy might have caused the employment rate to go up thus lowered the welfare rate?

[moderate democrat]

can you explain then, why despite controlling the government for the majority of that time and devoting trillions of dollars to helping poor people in this country since the 1960s we have MORE people dependent on government now than we did then?......is it simply incompetence?......


can you prove to me that, if we had not done all the things we had done, there would be FEWER poor people now than then? Of course you can't.

I would suggest that the war against poverty has only slowed the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top... it certainly has not turned it around.

[PostmodernProphet]

can you prove to me that, if we had not done all the things we had done, there would be FEWER poor people now than then? Of course you can't.



I can certainly argue that if they had done things RIGHT, as opposed to all the things you did, there would have been fewer poor now.....the system the Democrats maintained KEPT people from being employed...KEPT families from staying together....two things that OBVIOUSLY would have resulted in fewer poor people today....

[PostmodernProphet]

I would suggest that the war against poverty has only slowed the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top... it certainly has not turned it around.

transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top?......that makes no sense whatsoever....I expect you meant the other way around.....the poor in the 21st Century are worlds away richer than the poor of the 1960s....the top 2% in this country aren't richer because they have made the bottom 20% poorer....the bottom 20% are richer as well.....

[moderate democrat]

transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top?......that makes no sense whatsoever....I expect you meant the other way around.....the poor in the 21st Century are worlds away richer than the poor of the 1960s....the top 2% in this country aren't richer because they have made the bottom 20% poorer....the bottom 20% are richer as well.....


the distance between the wealthy in America and the poor in America has grown. I suggest that the war on poverty has slowed the rate of increase of that distance.

[PostmodernProphet]

the distance between the wealthy in America and the poor in America has grown. I suggest that the war on poverty has slowed the rate of increase of that distance.

so what?....that doesn't automatically mean that the poor are worse off than they used to be......what is the distance between an American living in poverty and the upper middle class in Lesotho?.......chances are the guy from Lesotho would love to have the income of the poor American.....having less than the richest guy in the neighborhood does not make you poor.....I would say that this demonstrates the point better than anything else.....the Demos control people and make them dependent on government, not because they are poor, but because they have a lot less than the rich......you can have a dishwasher and a microwave...a wide screen television and a computer....a car and a garage to keep it in, but you need government assistance because you are poor......

you need examples?.....since Obama took office the Dems have expanded Medicare....to help people have health insurance....up to an income of $85k a year.......$85K a year is now "poor"......$85k is now dependant on the government.....

we subsidize prescription drug coverage for couples earning $150k a year....Dems think $150K a year is "poor".....$150K a year is now dependent on the government.....

we gave free analog converters to everyone....because not having HD TV is "poor".....not having HDTV is dependent on the government......

what's next?.....I think this deserves a thread of it's own, perhaps stickyed......what are the thing Dems think you are poor if you don't have.....

[moderate democrat]

so what?....that doesn't automatically mean that the poor are worse off than they used to be......what is the distance between an American living in poverty and the upper middle class in Lesotho?.......chances are the guy from Lesotho would love to have the income of the poor American.....having less than the richest guy in the neighborhood does not make you poor.....I would say that this demonstrates the point better than anything else.....the Demos control people and make them dependent on government, not because they are poor, but because they have a lot less than the rich......you can have a dishwasher and a microwave...a wide screen television and a computer....a car and a garage to keep it in, but you need government assistance because you are poor......

you need examples?.....since Obama took office the Dems have expanded Medicare....to help people have health insurance....up to an income of $85k a year.......$85K a year is now "poor"......$85k is now dependant on the government.....

we subsidize prescription drug coverage for couples earning $150k a year....Dems think $150K a year is "poor".....$150K a year is now dependent on the government.....

we gave free analog converters to everyone....because not having HD TV is "poor".....not having HDTV is dependent on the government......

what's next?.....I think this deserves a thread of it's own, perhaps stickyed......what are the thing Dems think you are poor if you don't have.....

I do not believe that the war on poverty has been a failure... I do not think anyone can show how the efforts to mitigate poverty have created MORE poor people and not, as I believe, created fewer poor people who are not as poor as would have been the case had those efforts not been taken.

[PostmodernProphet]

I do not believe that the war on poverty has been a failure... I do not think anyone can show how the efforts to mitigate poverty have created MORE poor people and not, as I believe, created fewer poor people who are not as poor as would have been the case had those efforts not been taken.

it is a failure because it has created more DEPENDENCY on government......

[moderate democrat]

it is a failure because it has created more DEPENDENCY on government......

that is your contention. I do not agree with it. I am not sure that, had we done absolutely NOTHING to attempt to mitigate poverty in America, we would not have even more impoverished people dependent upon government today.

and hey...as the title of the thread indicates...the winning party is putting their priorities in place and dismantling the priorities of the losing party. democrats believe that THEIR priorities are better for the COUNTRY, and, in this last election, it would seem as if the majority of Americans agreed with them.

[Trigg]

I guess you guys should have run a better slate of candidates...or had a better message.

Guess you know what you need to work on in the future!:poke:

Actually we had some VERY good candidates running this year. Unfortunatally Bush was unpopular and what usually happens is the party with an unpopular outgoing President usually looses the election. No surprise.

IMHO Romney and Huckabee (didn't care for McCain), were a hell of a lot better than Kerry and Gore. Kerry is the reason the dems lost to Bush on his second run.

[moderate democrat]

Actually we had some VERY good candidates running this year. Unfortunatally Bush was unpopular and what usually happens is the party with an unpopular outgoing President usually looses the election. No surprise.

IMHO Romney and Huckabee (didn't care for McCain), were a hell of a lot better than Kerry and Gore. Kerry is the reason the dems lost to Bush on his second run.

newsflash: I didn't pick McCain as your candidate.... you all did. If he wasn't your best one, why in the world did you nominate him?

[red states rule]

can you prove to me that, if we had not done all the things we had done, there would be FEWER poor people now than then? Of course you can't.

I would suggest that the war against poverty has only slowed the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top... it certainly has not turned it around.

We have had $9 trillion in wealth transfers since JBJ's Great Society - yet Dems tell us they need more and poverty is worse then ever

How many more trillions do you guys want to take from the producers and give to the "poor"?

[moderate democrat]

We have had $9 trillion in wealth transfers since JBJ's Great Society - yet Dems tell us they need more and poverty is worse then ever

How many more trillions do you guys want to take from the producers and give to the "poor"?

you didn't answer my question.

try doing that before you ask new ones of your own...that is how a conversation works.

[Trigg]

newsflash: I didn't pick McCain as your candidate.... you all did. If he wasn't your best one, why in the world did you nominate him?

LORD knows why the idiots voted for him. I certainly didn't, by the time Indiana got to vote it was all over.

I suspect he won because Romney and Huckabee were splitting the votes between them, if one had quit earlier I don't think McCain would have gotten the nomination. But we'll never know.

[Nukeman]

newsflash: I didn't pick McCain as your candidate.... you all did. If he wasn't your best one, why in the world did you nominate him?


NEWSFLASH!!!!
The Liberal media PICKED McCain not the true conservatives of this country. In fact If you were to peruse this sight you would see NO ONE was happy with the nomination of the RINO Mccain......

[Yurt]

NEWSFLASH!!!!
The Liberal media PICKED McCain not the true conservatives of this country. In fact If you were to peruse this sight you would see NO ONE was happy with the nomination of the RINO Mccain......

thats true, the new york slimes endorsed mccain...

[moderate democrat]

NEWSFLASH!!!!
The Liberal media PICKED McCain not the true conservatives of this country. In fact If you were to peruse this sight you would see NO ONE was happy with the nomination of the RINO Mccain......

so who WERE those people in all those states who voted for McCain in the republican primaries? were they ALL employees of the liberal media????

Or are you suggesting that the republican rank and file across america votes the way the liberal media tells them to?

[Nukeman]

so who WERE those people in all those states who voted for McCain in the republican primaries? were they ALL employees of the liberal media????

Or are you suggesting that the republican rank and file across america votes the way the liberal media tells them to?NO dip wad, what I am saying is that the liberal media made such a fuss about McCain coming from behind to take the lead that some and obviously enough thought what the hell am I voting in the primaries for since it is already decided not to mention as Trigg ponted out that a number of states primaries really didn't matter since it was all over by then........

[moderate democrat]

NO dip wad, what I am saying is that the liberal media made such a fuss about McCain coming from behind to take the lead that some and obviously enough thought what the hell am I voting in the primaries for since it is already decided not to mention as Trigg ponted out that a number of states primaries really didn't matter since it was all over by then........


so..even though nearly every republican was unhappy with the RINO republican McCain's candidacy, he somehow got the nomination...and that is somehow not the fault of the republican party primary voters but, rather, the liberal media's fault?????????:lol:

I can't believe you won't even accept responsibility for who you nominated... as if somehow you all voted for him while under a hypnotic trance that the liberal media intentionally put you under! Too much!!!!:laugh2:

[Yurt]

the media got obama elected...

only naive folks would believe the media had no play in this election and that the media was not really an extension of the obama campaign...

heck, even hillary realized that the media got obama elected

[Nukeman]

so..even though nearly every republican was unhappy with the RINO republican McCain's candidacy, he somehow got the nomination...and that is somehow not the fault of the republican party primary voters but, rather, the liberal media's fault?????????:lol:

I can't believe you won't even accept responsibility for who you nominated... as if somehow you all voted for him while under a hypnotic trance that the liberal media intentionally put you under! Too much!!!!:laugh2:NEWSFLASH.... I DID NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN IN THE PRIMARIES. SO TAKE YOUR SMILEY AND SHOVE IT.................

I do believe the media misled the public in its portrail of the primaries. If yo think otherwise you are just fooling yourself and living under a rock.....

[moderate democrat]

NEWSFLASH.... I DID NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN IN THE PRIMARIES. SO TAKE YOUR SMILEY AND SHOVE IT.................

I do believe the media misled the public in its portrail of the primaries. If yo think otherwise you are just fooling yourself and living under a rock.....


I wasn't speaking of you in particular, but of your party.

So...you really ARE saying that the republican party rank and file are such sheep that they voted for a RINO because the liberal media told them to.

Is that your final answer?:poke:

[Nukeman]

I do believe the media misled the public in its portrail of the primaries. QUOTE]

[QUOTE=moderate democrat;352377]I wasn't speaking of you in particular, but of your party.

So...you really ARE saying that the republican party rank and file are such sheep that they voted for a RINO because the liberal media told them to.

Is that your final answer?:poke:Reading comprehension is not really your strong point today is it? rank and file sheep have been the sole domain of the Democrats for a Very Very long time.

There is a BEG difference in being MISLED and being a blind sheep.... :slap:

[Yurt]

the media got obama elected...

only naive folks would believe the media had no play in this election and that the media was not really an extension of the obama campaign...

heck, even hillary realized that the media got obama elected

i'll wait :poke:

[glockmail]

I wasn't speaking of you in particular, but of your party.

So...you really ARE saying that the republican party rank and file are such sheep that they voted for a RINO because the liberal media told them to.

Is that your final answer?:poke: I can't speak for the rank and file but this Conservative voted for the most conservative during the primary, Alan Keyes, who happens to be actually black instead of 1/2 black, and this registered Republican voted for the least liberal who had a chance of winning, which was McCain.

[gabosaurus]

Deservedly so. Most of Bush's spending policies were total BS and made no sense to anyone but conservative Republicans.

[moderate democrat]

I do believe the media misled the public in its portrail of the primaries. QUOTE]

Reading comprehension is not really your strong point today is it? rank and file sheep have been the sole domain of the Democrats for a Very Very long time.

There is a BEG difference in being MISLED and being a blind sheep.... :slap:

so the liberal media was able to somehow "mislead" the rank and file republicans that John McCain, the maverick who had always gone against the prevailing currents of the GOP, was somehow the PERFECT candidate for your party? I get it.

So your argument is that your rank and file members aren't sheep, necessarily, they're just dumb as a box of rocks?

yeah.... go with that one.

[Yurt]

[QUOTE=Nukeman;352378]

so the liberal media was able to somehow "mislead" the rank and file republicans that John McCain, the maverick who had always gone against the prevailing currents of the GOP, was somehow the PERFECT candidate for your party? I get it.

So your argument is that your rank and file members aren't sheep, necessarily, they're just dumb as a box of rocks?

yeah.... go with that one.

the media fooled you guys...obama has been the media's choice from almost day one....just ask hillary...you sheeple fell for obama hook line and sinker...

[moderate democrat]

I can't speak for the rank and file but this Conservative voted for the most conservative during the primary, Alan Keyes, who happens to be actually black instead of 1/2 black, and this registered Republican voted for the least liberal who had a chance of winning, which was McCain.


the evidence is clear, however, that registered republicans preferred John McCain over Alan Keyes by a large margin. YOUR party nominated him... not the liberal media.

[moderate democrat]

[QUOTE=moderate democrat;352423]

the media fooled you guys...obama has been the media's choice from almost day one....just ask hillary...you sheeple fell for obama hook line and sinker...

so..the media FOOLED the democrats into picking the winner and you republicans all purposely and thoughtfully picked the loser? :laugh2:

good choice!:poke:

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=Yurt;352425]

so..the media FOOLED the democrats into picking the winner and you republicans all purposely and thoughtfully picked the loser? :laugh2:

good choice!:poke:

More like the liberal media provided glowing and positive coverage for Obama - while ignoring anything that would go agaisnt his messiah image

What did Obama voters know about current events and facts about Obama and Biden?

Here it is. The results of the liberal media's slanted and biased coverage of the 2008 election

Now we are seeing the results. $3.6 trillion budget, nearly a $2 trillion deficit, the iow ready to drop below 7,000; and Dems drunk with power and forcing socialism down our throats


<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QSNthmabllE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QSNthmabllE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

[moderate democrat]

More like the liberal media provided glowing and positive coverage for Obama - while ignoring anything that would go agaisnt his messiah image

What did Obama voters know about current events and facts about Obama and Biden?

Here it is. The results of the liberal media's slanted and biased coverage of the 2008 election

Now we are seeing the results. $3.6 trillion budget, nearly a $2 trillion deficit, the iow ready to drop below 7,000; and Dems drunk with power and forcing socialism down our throats


so you agree...the liberal media FOOLED us democrats into picking a winner...and yet you republicans thoughtfully and objectively picked a loser.

thanks for agreeing with me.

and if America really feels like Obama and the democrats are forcing something down their throats, why are his poll numbers identical to when he was inaugurated?

[red states rule]

so you agree...the liberal media FOOLED us democrats into picking a winner...and yet you republicans thoughtfully and objectively picked a loser.

thanks for agreeing with me.

The liberal media ran Obama's campaign, and thier coverage proves it

I am sure alot of the people who voted for Obama are NOT enjoying the change

Libs like you however, must be giddy over the tanking economy. To people like you, it means a chance for more political power since you will blame others and not Obama, Reid, and Pelosi

The more people that are miserable, the happier hacks like you are

[moderate democrat]

I am sure alot of the people who voted for Obama are NOT enjoying the change



less than 67% of the people VOTED for Obama, yet he has a 67% approval rating, so what you are "sure" of is not supported by anything other than the hot air blowing out your ass.

[red states rule]

less than 67% of the people VOTED for Obama, yet he has a 67% approval rating, so what you are "sure" of is not supported by anything other than the hot air blowing out your ass.

You are desperate Virgil. Your messiah was in the mid 80's on Jan 20. The fact is his job performance has cost him about 20 points- and like the Dow he will drop further

Seems people are not happy in the direction Dems are taking the country

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

[moderate democrat]

You are desperate Virgil. Your messiah was in the mid 80's on Jan 20. The fact is his job performance has cost him about 20 points- and like the Dow he will drop further

Seems people are not happy in the direction Dems are taking the country

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html


hge was NOT in the mid 80s on Jan 20. That is a lie...but, coming from you, not surprising. I SHOWED you the gallup poll which had him at 68% the day he was inaugurated. He stands at 67% today. Virtually unchanged.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

[red states rule]

hge was NOT in the mid 80s on Jan 20. That is a lie...but, coming from you, not surprising. I SHOWED you the gallup poll which had him at 68% the day he was inaugurated. He stands at 67% today. Virtually unchanged.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

After less than a week in office, Barack Obama's approval rating plunges 15 points
By David Gardner
Last updated at 8:56 AM on 26th January 2009


Barack Obama might have been in office for less than a week, but the euphoria is beginning to wane.

The new President's approval ratings have fallen from a stratospheric 83 per cent to a more modest - although still impressive - 68 per cent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1127427/After-week-office-Barack-Obamas-approval-rating-plunges-shocking-15-points.html

[moderate democrat]

After less than a week in office, Barack Obama's approval rating plunges 15 points
By David Gardner
Last updated at 8:56 AM on 26th January 2009


Barack Obama might have been in office for less than a week, but the euphoria is beginning to wane.

The new President's approval ratings have fallen from a stratospheric 83 per cent to a more modest - although still impressive - 68 per cent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1127427/After-week-office-Barack-Obamas-approval-rating-plunges-shocking-15-points.html
the daily mail? :lol: from a MONTH ago?????:lol:

I showed you the gallup numbers.... gallup numbers that you yourself touted in another thread. why do you run away from them?:poke:

[red states rule]

the daily mail? :lol: from a MONTH ago?????:lol:

I showed you the gallup numbers.... gallup numbers that you yourself touted in another thread. why do you run away from them?:poke:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2171493/posts

Obama's Approval Rating Drops 15% to 68%, But WHY?
Crimson Politics ^ | 1/25/09 | Brian Kane

Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:07:17 PM by Crimson Politics

Obama's approval rating drops from 83% to 68%, a 15% drop. There are several explanations for this, the only president to have a higher approval rating from Obama on Gallup would be John F. Kennedy. Maybe because unlike Obama, John F. Kennedy didn't just win on hype but on actual substance of his ideas.

Obama's first actions don't help his reputation much at all on EITHER side of the aisle.


:laugh2::laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2171493/posts

Obama's Approval Rating Drops 15% to 68%, But WHY?
Crimson Politics ^ | 1/25/09 | Brian Kane

Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:07:17 PM by Crimson Politics

Obama's approval rating drops from 83% to 68%, a 15% drop. There are several explanations for this, the only president to have a higher approval rating from Obama on Gallup would be John F. Kennedy. Maybe because unlike Obama, John F. Kennedy didn't just win on hype but on actual substance of his ideas.

Obama's first actions don't help his reputation much at all on EITHER side of the aisle.


:laugh2::laugh2:


month old stuff...you have YET to show any national poll that had Obama at 80 on January 20.:lol: Gallup shows his popularity remains right where it was the day he was sworn in.

[red states rule]

month old stuff...you have YET to show any national poll that had Obama at 80 on January 20.:lol: Gallup shows his popularity remains right where it was the day he was sworn in.

Keep ignoriong the facts Virgil. It is what you have done for years, so why change now?

Keep enjoying the change. In a short period time you will be in the minority :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Keep ignoriong the facts.
Keep enjoying the change. In a short period time you will be in the minority :laugh2:

Like I said... a greater percentage of the people approve of him than voted for him.

you can't run away from that.

And, you can predict all you want, Elmer... we ARE in the majority and you ain't.:lol:

[red states rule]

Like I said... a greater percentage of the people approve of him than voted for him.

you can't run away from that.

And, you can predict all you want, Elmer... we ARE in the majority and you ain't.:lol:

For now. However like the Dow, that number is falling at a steady pace :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

For now. However like the Dow, that number is falling at a steady pace


http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

not falling at all... going up, as a matter of fact.... 8% in four days!

run away from that FACT, Elmer!:lol:

[red states rule]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

not falling at all... going up, as a matter of fact.

run away from that FACT, Elmer!:lol:

One poll does not a trend make Virgil :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

One poll does not a trend make :laugh2:

oh... there are plenty of polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Have you ever seen that site? RCP? They average a whole bunch of polls. I don't know if you have seen it before, but I recommend it. I watched it a lot in the last election...:lol:

[red states rule]

oh... there are plenty of polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Have you ever seen that site? RCP? They average a whole bunch of polls. I don't know if you have seen it before, but I recommend it. I watched it a lot in the last election...:lol:

Yep there sure are Virgil

Including the right track/wrong track

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

[moderate democrat]

Yep there sure are MD
Including the right track/wrong track

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

did you LOOK at the trend line graph in your very own link????:lol:

That mumber has been steadily CLIMBING since Obama took office. Did you SEE how LOW it was when YOUR party was running the show???

Thanks for that link... it is powerful testimony!!!

[red states rule]

did you LOOK at the trend line graph in your very own link????:lol:

That mumber has been steadily CLIMBING since Obama took office. Did you SEE how LOW it was when YOUR party was running the show???

Thanks for that link... it is powerful testimony!!!

Only you would be pleased with a 3 point gain. A 3 point gain that is within the margin of error :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Only you would be pleased with a 3 point gain. A 3 point gain that is within the margin of error :laugh2:

you just proved to this board that you cannot read graphs in your own links.

Percentage who thought country was on right track immediately PRIOR to the election: 9.6%

Percentage who think the country is in the right track today 33.5%

That is NOT "3 points"...That is almost 24 points!:lol:

[red states rule]

you just proved to this board that you cannot read graphs in your own links.

Percentage who thought country was on right track immediately PRIOR to the election: 9.6%

Percentage who think the country is in the right track today 33.5%

That is NOT "3 points"...That is almost 24 points!:lol:

Eh Virgil you might not want to drinking Scotch when you post. Of course being in that condition does allow you to escape reality

On Jan 21, 31% approve

2/19 ABC 31% approve

NO change

[moderate democrat]

From YOUR link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

RIGHT direction TODAY: 33.5%

RIGHT direction 1/21/09: 22.1%

RIGHT direction 11/04/08: 9.6%

:lol:

[PostmodernProphet]

From YOUR link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

RIGHT direction TODAY: 33.5%

RIGHT direction 1/21/09: 22.1%

RIGHT direction 11/04/08: 9.6%

:lol:

at last this poll is meaningful....we now know that 24% of Americans really WANT to fuck up the country......

[red states rule]

From YOUR link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

RIGHT direction TODAY: 33.5%

RIGHT direction 1/21/09: 22.1%

RIGHT direction 11/04/08: 9.6%

:lol:

You might want to send a funding request to yuor messiah and get a pair of glasses VMD

Or take a governemnt funded reading class

There is a 11/6 poll that shows right direction is 32%

[moderate democrat]

You might want to send a funding request to yuor messiah and get a pair of glasses VMD

Or take a governemnt funded reading class

There is a 11/6 poll that shows right direction is 32%


can you read the graph in your own link? yes or no?

the graph in the RCP link that YOU provided shows the figures just as I showed them.

Why can't you be a man and just admit when you screwed up? :poke:

[red states rule]

can you read the graph in your own link? yes or no?

the graph in the RCP link that YOU provided shows the figures just as I showed them.

Why can't you be a man and just admit when you screwed up? :poke:

Sorry VMD, there is no 9% in Nov 08. I am looking at the polls after the election and they are pretty much unchanged

[moderate democrat]

Sorry VMD, there is no 9% in Nov 08. I am looking at the polls after the election and they are pretty much unchanged


you are either blind, or incredibly stupid, or a liar. which is it?

Put your cursor over the blue line in the graph on the link that YOU provided..
find election day and tell us what the blue line RCP average says for that day.

find inauguration day ande tell us what the blue line RCP average says for THAT day.

tell us what the RCP average says for today.

I'll wait.

[red states rule]

you are either blind, or incredibly stupid, or a liar. which is it?

Put your cursor over the blue line in the graph on the link that YOU provided.. what does the RCP average say for that day?

find election day and tell us what the blue line RCP average says for that day.

find inauguration day ande tell us what the blue line RCP average says for THAT day.

tell us what the RCP average says for today.

I'll wait.

Hmmmmmmmm, I'll wait - again. Sounds very familiar

Diageo/Hotline on 11/6 to 11/9 right direction is 30%

Ipsos/McClatchy on 11/6 to 11/9 is 32%

ABC News/Wash Post on 2/19 to 2/22 is 31%

[moderate democrat]

Hmmmmmmmm, I'll wait - again. Sounds very familiar

Diageo/Hotline on 11/6 to 11/9 right direction is 30%

Ipsos/McClatchy on 11/6 to 11/9 is 32%

ABC News/Wash Post on 2/19 to 2/22 is 31%

apples and oranges, of course.

we both know that any one poll varies greatly when compared to any one other poll. that is the beauty of this RCP site that I showed you yesterday. It averages out ALL the polls and, thus, shows a more accurate picture.

According to the graph on the page that YOU provided, the nation has been increasingly positive about the direction of the country since the day that Obama was elected. :lol:

WHy don't YOU compare apples to apples and show us, for example what the Ipsos poll shows TODAY and compare it to then... why not show what the ABC news poll said then and compare it to now?

well...that is a silly question, actually...we KNOW why you won't...because it would prove that you are a liar.:poke:

[red states rule]

apples and oranges, of course.

we both know that any one poll varies greatly when compared to any one other poll. that is the beauty of this RCP site that I showed you yesterday. It averages out ALL the polls and, thus, shows a more accurate picture.

According to the graph on the page that YOU provided, the nation has been increasingly positive about the direction of the country since the day that Obama was elected. :lol:

WHy don't YOU compare apples to apples and show us, for example what the Ipsos poll shows TODAY and compare it to then... why not show what the ABC news poll said then and compare it to now?

well...that is a silly question, actually...we KNOW why you won't...because it would prove that you are a liar.:poke:

Ok Virgil you have been busted and now you go into spin mode. Now, why not be a man and admit you screwed up?

I'll wait :laugh2: :poke:

[moderate democrat]

ok virgil you have been busted and now you go into spin mode. Now, why not be a man and admit you screwed up?

I'll wait :laugh2: :poke:


roflmfao!!!!

[moderate democrat]

Ok Virgil you have been busted and now you go into spin mode. Now, why not be a man and admit you screwed up?


by the way, red... will you EVER explain the blue line on the graph from RCP that was in the link that you posted? This link here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html#chart


Will you ever explain why the line starts curving upward starting on election day and has risen steadily ever since?

Or will you continue to spam the board with stupid cartoons and hope that no one notices how you were hoist with your own petard?:lol:

[red states rule]

by the way, red... will you EVER explain the blue line on the graph from RCP that was in the link that you posted? This link here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html#chart


Will you ever explain why the line starts curving upward starting on election day and has risen steadily ever since?

Or will you continue to spam the board with stupid cartoons and hope that no one notices how you were hoist with your own petard?:lol:

Virgil, when you drank the Kool Aid, you chugged the whole jug.

Just amazing.

So now Obama whines about the deficit he inherited "when I got here" so how does he go about fixing it?

By doubling it., and his minons ignore his approval numbers go down

Change we can believe in? Excuse me while I vomit.

[moderate democrat]

Virgil, when you drank the Kool Aid, you chugged the whole jug.

Just amazing.

So now Obama whines about the deficit he inherited "when I got here" so how does he go about fixing it?

By doubling it., and his minons ignore his approval numbers go down

Change we can believe in? Excuse me while I vomit.


so you can't seem to explain the blue line on the graph from the page you, yourself posted as a link?

Why don't you just grow a set and admit it, girlieman?

and EXCUSE you while you vomit??? Excuse you???? I think I'd sit on the sidelines and laugh while you vomited.:lol:

In fact, RSR...I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.:poke:

[Kathianne]

RSR and MD both thread banned. Posts split to cage, where they are also thread banned.

[Trigg]

I wasn't speaking of you in particular, but of your party.

So...you really ARE saying that the republican party rank and file are such sheep that they voted for a RINO because the liberal media told them to.

Is that your final answer?:poke:

Good lord, he's saying the same thing I am.

The media was pulling for McCain all along. Romney and Huckabee split the true conservative votes between them. Which allowed McCain to pick up the independents and more liberal conservatives.

The media did the same thing with bambam. Championing him and all but telling Hillary to quit, even when she was ahead.