Just How Hateful Is The Left?

[Kathianne]

From Biden on down? Very. Seriously, read this. Links are provided at site. There people are deranged!

http://www.sundriesshack.com/2011/08/01/let-us-look-back-at-the-calm-rational-rhetoric-of-the-debt-ceiling-circus/


Let Us Look Back at the Calm, Rational Rhetoric of the Debt Ceiling Circus (http://www.sundriesshack.com/2011/08/01/let-us-look-back-at-the-calm-rational-rhetoric-of-the-debt-ceiling-circus/)
Now that the debt ceiling circus is all over but the voting and back-slapping, why not look back at some of the well-considered and not-at-a–batspit-crazy statements made by certain influential members of the left over the past few days. We can start very near the top (http://nation.foxnews.com/tea-party/2011/08/01/biden-tea-partiers-are-terrorists), with this nugget of reason from Vice President Joe Biden.

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.
Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.
Hmm. That wasn’t quite what I expected from a leader of the Democrats who, you’ll recall, lectured Tea Party members for their “violent rhetoric” not all that long ago. Perhaps White House adviser and CNN contributor Fareed Zakaria (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/01/zakaria-tea-party-held-america-hostage/) exercised a bit more calm.

…the Tea Party is trying to pass a particular agenda, which is basically this all-cuts budget. It cannot get it through the Congress of the United States. It cannot get it through the political democratic process that we have, which is that Congress passes something and the president must sign it. That’s the normal workings of democracy.
So, instead of accepting some compromise that can get through the democratic process, what they’re saying is we’ll blow up the country if you don’t listen to us. We’ll hold hostage the credit of the United States, the good standing of the United States and we’ll blow it up.
“Blow up” America? Hold it “hostage”? Well, that’s pretty much the Biden line. Gee, I’m beginning to detect a carefully-scripted talking point. Hopefully the hypocrisy ended there. I’d hate to see it spread (http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/174669-dem-lawmaker-calls-debt-deal-sugar-coated-satan-sandwich) into, say, Congress.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted (https://twitter.com/#%21/repcleaver/status/98000362564358144) Monday.
Good news: no more terrorist analogies. Bad news: Satan? Really? The Prince of Lies himself? I don’t see how the rhetoric could get any more ridiculous (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-absolutely-vote-debt-ceiling-deal-drawbacks/story?id=14205456)!

In an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, [Former Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi said she will “absolutely” vote yes on the compromise package, even though she agreed with one colleague who called it a “Satan sandwich (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/08/meat-sweet-or-debt-deal-the-mystery-of-the-satan-sandwich.html).”
“It probably is – with some Satan fries on the side,” Pelosi said.
Oof! A Satan sandwich with Satan fries? Did she forget the Satan Diet Coke and the little packets of Satan ketchup that would have completely the Infernal Unhappy Meal?

...



There's lots more, quite unreal.

[Kathianne]

Anyone that reads my posts from yesterday knows that I was concerned that the 'right' would go over the top in hate, turning moderates against the ideas. Well now, do I think the same will happen to the left? No. The MSM media will not cover these insane comments.

[red states rule]

So much for all that civility the Dems and liberal media demanded after the Tucson shootings. Now a cartoonist from the Arizona Daily Star has Obama sending in the SEAL's to kill Tea Party memebers

You are right Kat, the liberal media will say nothing. They will be too busy laughing


http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/sendinsealsdebtceiling.JPG

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gm11080420110804071338.jpg

[Gunny]

Anyone that reads my posts from yesterday knows that I was concerned that the 'right' would go over the top in hate, turning moderates against the ideas. Well now, do I think the same will happen to the left? No. The MSM media will not cover these insane comments.

Perhaps. However, minus all the sensationalism, there IS a kernel of truth, IMO. The "tea partiers" are a bigger threat than they do any good. Their mere existence steals Republican votes for one thing. Their hard line and VERY unrealistic all or nothing stance on this issue smacks of some people needing a good dose of reality. At this point, the ceiling HAD to be raised. Cutting spending alone at this point solves nothing. It's trying to stop a bleeding artery with a bandaid.

[Monkeybone]

Perhaps. However, minus all the sensationalism, there IS a kernel of truth, IMO. The "tea partiers" are a bigger threat than they do any good. Their mere existence steals Republican votes for one thing. Their hard line and VERY unrealistic all or nothing stance on this issue smacks of some people needing a good dose of reality. At this point, the ceiling HAD to be raised. Cutting spending alone at this point solves nothing. It's trying to stop a bleeding artery with a bandaid. and raising the debt ceiling was just giving someone a blood transfusion instead of a bandaid. And when that blood runs out, instead of trying to seal the wound, just grab another bag of blood. Or like if your car is making a clanking noise and instead doing something about it you turn up the radio just a bit more and declared it "fixed".

It was a catch-22. Don't raise it, we are screwed and have to make hard choices. Raise it and we are screwed because it just adds more to an unsustainable debt. Just making the same thing come to the surface all over again in a short time.

[Gaffer]

The Tea Party is just getting started, give us time. It took the commies decades to insinuate them selves into the democrat party and take it over. The republicans are going the same way but faster.

TEA

[ConHog]

Perhaps. However, minus all the sensationalism, there IS a kernel of truth, IMO. The "tea partiers" are a bigger threat than they do any good. Their mere existence steals Republican votes for one thing. Their hard line and VERY unrealistic all or nothing stance on this issue smacks of some people needing a good dose of reality. At this point, the ceiling HAD to be raised. Cutting spending alone at this point solves nothing. It's trying to stop a bleeding artery with a bandaid.

I agree with you on this. There hardcore my way or the highway isn't going to cut it. And like you say they are going to hurt the Republican party in the end.

[Gunny]

and raising the debt ceiling was just giving someone a blood transfusion instead of a bandaid. And when that blood runs out, instead of trying to seal the wound, just grab another bag of blood. Or like if your car is making a clanking noise and instead doing something about it you turn up the radio just a bit more and declared it "fixed".

It was a catch-22. Don't raise it, we are screwed and have to make hard choices. Raise it and we are screwed because it just adds more to an unsustainable debt. Just making the same thing come to the surface all over again in a short time.

And taking a no compromise stance just means you bleed out instead of getting a transfusion.

I'm not praising ANYTHING. I'm saying the "vaunted" tea party is as full of shit as the rest.

[red states rule]

And taking a no compromise stance just means you bleed out instead of getting a transfusion.

I'm not praising ANYTHING. I'm saying the "vaunted" tea party is as full of shit as the rest.

I would like for someone to explain to me why the winners of the election have to compromise with the losers of the election?

Remember after taking office Obama called the R's to the WH and told them "I won"? I don't recall anyone or the liberal media demanding Obama compromise with the R's

[Gunny]

I would like for someone to explain to me why the winners of the election have to compromise with the losers of the election?

Remember after taking office Obama called the R's to the WH and told them "I won"? I don't recall anyone or the liberal media demanding Obama compromise with the R's

Obama did not compromise with the right. He tried to steam roll them. That's not a question.

Making a decision based on common sense does not necessarily mean compromising. The tea party's demands were as stupid as the Dems'. Just more taking a stance and name-calling by both sides to get their sheeple in line.

The losers are ALWAYS "us".

[fj1200]

I would like for someone to explain to me why the winners of the election have to compromise with the losers of the election?

Remember after taking office Obama called the R's to the WH and told them "I won"? I don't recall anyone or the liberal media demanding Obama compromise with the R's

BO won his last election, so did the Democrat majority in the Senate.

[ConHog]

I would like for someone to explain to me why the winners of the election have to compromise with the losers of the election?

Remember after taking office Obama called the R's to the WH and told them "I won"? I don't recall anyone or the liberal media demanding Obama compromise with the R's

I don't think compromise is the right term. More like work with and accept that one party winning doesn't mean that the other party should be told to shut the fuck up and the winner gets to do whatever he wants. I don't like it when Obama does it, and I equally won't like it if and when someone on the right does it. The ONLY solution is if they all stop acting like fucking babies and work together to solve the problems we face.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn110806_cmyk20110805020949.jpg

[red states rule]

BO won his last election, so did the Democrat majority in the Senate.

The Tea Party won the last elecion actually

and we have seen the results of "compromise" over the last few days. Hope you are enjoying it FJ

[fj1200]

The Tea Party won the last elecion actually

and we have seen the results of "compromise" over the last few days. Hope you are enjoying it FJ

:facepalm: Talk about fresh out of ideas...

[Gunny]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn110806_cmyk20110805020949.jpg

The problem I see here is tea party pundits doing exactly the same thing the left does. I have yet to meet anyone who claims to be from the tea party that will discuss or explain jack. They just turn a blind eye to any criticism and launch into a diatribe of vitriol. Sound familiar? Our current President got into office using the exact same tactic.

[Gunny]

The Tea Party won the last elecion actually

and we have seen the results of "compromise" over the last few days. Hope you are enjoying it FJ

Really? News to me. All I see are Ds and Rs holding office. Which, goes to the most troubling question I have about the "Tea Party". What exactly is the "Tea Party" other than uncompromising obstructionists?

[fj1200]

What exactly is the "Tea Party" other than uncompromising obstructionists?

Compromise is bad mmkay.

[Gunny]

Compromise is bad mmkay.

I disagree. We have two parties that oppose each other even if they have to do a 180 in claimed idealism to do so. I'm not talking perfect world here. I'm talking about what we have NOW. Without compromise, even less than gets accomplished now will be the result.

[fj1200]

I disagree. We have two parties that oppose each other even if they have to do a 180 in claimed idealism to do so. I'm not talking perfect world here. I'm talking about what we have NOW. Without compromise, even less than gets accomplished now will be the result.

We've had compromise for years leading to what we have NOW. A step from conservative to compromise with liberalism is still a step toward liberalism.

[Prince Lemon]

The Left is a debased Marxist mad house.It will always fail,because it is based on human insanity provided by Satan.

[Prince Lemon]

The problem I see here is tea party pundits doing exactly the same thing the left does. I have yet to meet anyone who claims to be from the tea party that will discuss or explain jack. They just turn a blind eye to any criticism and launch into a diatribe of vitriol. Sound familiar? Our current President got into office using the exact same tactic.Like this cartoon.+1

[fj1200]

The Left is a debased Marxist mad house.It will always fail,because it is based on human insanity provided by Satan.

That is certainly a reasonable stance from which to start a debate.

[jimnyc]

With the people in Washington aside... I am friends with a few on the "left" and also deal/speak with many on the left. A few are hateful, as are a few righties I know. But I've found the problem being more that those on the left are less educated and just want to scream over my POV's with their emotional tirades. They want me to listen to them for an hour while they blast "Bush and the right" but then the instant I bring up BO, Pelosi, Reid... they speak over the top of me and want no part of my point of view.

[Gaffer]

Really? News to me. All I see are Ds and Rs holding office. Which, goes to the most troubling question I have about the "Tea Party". What exactly is the "Tea Party" other than uncompromising obstructionists? You have been listening to too much media bullshit Gunny. The Tea Party is not a party, it's a movement. It's the people of this country standing up and taking back control of the government. It's working within the system to throw out the good ole boys. The democrat party is lost. The repubs can still be reclaimed. The TP is about putting people in office that will represent you, not themselves or special interests. And if using the system doesn't work then you can expect a new group of Minutemen.

[LuvRPgrl]

With the people in Washington aside... I am friends with a few on the "left" and also deal/speak with many on the left. A few are hateful, as are a few righties I know. But I've found the problem being more that those on the left are less educated and just want to scream over my POV's with their emotional tirades. They want me to listen to them for an hour while they blast "Bush and the right" but then the instant I bring up BO, Pelosi, Reid... they speak over the top of me and want no part of my point of view.the differnce have noticed is the righties think their arguements are superior, while the lefties think "they" are superior

[ConHog]

the differnce have noticed is the righties think their arguements are superior, while the lefties think "they" are superior

BOOM right there.


And it ALL leads right to the White House and the most egotistical leader the world has ever seen. This guy is actually clownish in his arrogance.

[red states rule]

We've had compromise for years leading to what we have NOW. A step from conservative to compromise with liberalism is still a step toward liberalism.

Yet when the R's caved and "compromised" with Obama that was fine. You say it was the best they could do. If they did not make a deal they would be blamed for a "default" and a downgrade in the nations credit rating

Which is it?

Seems to me nothing was accomplished. There were NO spending cuts, they are being blamed for the drop in the DOW, the downgrade, and anything else the liberal media and Obama can think of

[fj1200]

Yet when the R's caved and "compromised" with Obama that was fine. You say it was the best they could do. If they did not make a deal they would be blamed for a "default" and a downgrade in the nations credit rating

Which is it?

Seems to me nothing was accomplished. There were NO spending cuts, they are being blamed for the drop in the DOW, the downgrade, and anything else the liberal media and Obama can think of

It pretty much was the best that they could do given that they control 1/2 of 1/3 and that damned checks and balances thing. Besides, this compromise was a move to the right in that it held the line of tax cuts and confirmed spending "cuts." Real change won't happen until they control more than what they have now.

And please, spare me the Rush rehash, I'll listen when I like.

[red states rule]

It pretty much was the best that they could do given that they control 1/2 of 1/3 and that damned checks and balances thing. Besides, this compromise was a move to the right in that it held the line of tax cuts and confirmed spending "cuts." Real change won't happen until they control more than what they have now.

And please, spare me the Rush rehash, I'll listen when I like.

Please tell me WHAT SPENDING CUTS? They slowe the rate of GROWTH. Is that what you are calling CUTS?

and it looks like the liberal media did not get your memo that the R's "compromised" A 2,000 point drop since the deal was done

Hope you like the results FJ

[fj1200]

Please tell me WHAT SPENDING CUTS? They slowe the rate of GROWTH. Is that what you are calling CUTS?

and it looks like the liberal media did not get your memo that the R's "compromised" A 2,000 point drop since the deal was done

Hope you like the results FJ

Pay attention, that's what I call "cuts." I'm sorry that you think we were in great shape before and that the market wasn't selling off before the deal. :rolleyes: The market has been selling off for a couple of weeks now.


"`What's rocking the market is a growth scare," said Kathleen Gaffney, co-manager of the $20 billion Loomis Sayles bond fund. "The market is under a lot of stress that really has little to do with the downgrade." Instead, Gaffney said, investors are focused on "how Europe and the U.S. are going to work their way out of a high debt burden" if economic growth remains slow.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-St-takes-a-dive-on-first-apf-1960115615.html?x=0&.v=15

(http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-St-takes-a-dive-on-first-apf-1960115615.html?x=0&.v=15)Treasury rates are also falling if you hadn't noticed. People are brushing off the downgrade.

[red states rule]

Pay attention, that's what I call "cuts." I'm sorry that you think we were in great shape before and that the market wasn't selling off before the deal. :rolleyes: The market has been selling off for a couple of weeks now.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-St-takes-a-dive-on-first-apf-1960115615.html?x=0&.v=15

(http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-St-takes-a-dive-on-first-apf-1960115615.html?x=0&.v=15)Treasury rates are also falling if you hadn't noticed. People are brushing off the downgrade.

OK so now you consider slowing the rate of growth in spending a cut. You should run for Congress of the US Senate. you would fit in fime with the current crop in DC

So what if the DOW shed 2,000 points since the grand compromise? I am sure you would say it would have happened anywayt - just like the folks on Capital Hill

[fj1200]

OK so now you consider slowing the rate of growth in spending a cut. You should run for Congress of the US Senate. you would fit in fime with the current crop in DC

Are you on drugs man? Of course they are not cuts, which is why I said "cuts." Did spending get cut in the '90s when budgets were balanced? No, the rate of growth was held in check while revenues accelerated. Is further work required? Of course but it wasn't going to happen in a rushed weekend of work.


So what if the DOW shed 2,000 points since the grand compromise? I am sure you would say it would have happened anywayt - just like the folks on Capital Hill

Do you not understand that the market has been falling since mid July? And so far less than 2,000 since the 7/21 peak.

[red states rule]

Are you on drugs man? Of course they are not cuts, which is why I said "cuts." Did spending get cut in the '90s when budgets were balanced? No, the rate of growth was held in check while revenues accelerated. Is further work required? Of course but it wasn't going to happen in a rushed weekend of work.



Do you not understand that the market has been falling since mid July? And so far less than 2,000 since the 7/21 peak.

So the grand compromise was a step closer toward liberalism

Thanks for comfirming the obvious

[fj1200]

So the grand compromise was a step closer toward liberalism

Thanks for comfirming the obvious

Clearly it is the drugs. You hate it when not everyone buys into your Rush rehash screed don't you?

[red states rule]

Clearly it is the drugs. You hate it when not everyone buys into your Rush rehash screed don't you?

Just the facts FJ. No cuts, increased spending, and another $2 trillion of debt added on.

and that is the best the R's could do?

That is n excuse for failed leadership. Period

[fj1200]

Just the facts FJ.

Just the ones you cherry pick anyway.

[red states rule]

Just the ones you cherry pick anyway.

What facts did I leave out of the grand compromise?

[Gunny]

We've had compromise for years leading to what we have NOW. A step from conservative to compromise with liberalism is still a step toward liberalism.

Got news for you. What you call conservatives now are progressives to me. Like I said, just depends on how old you are.

Democracies ALWAYS move left until they destroy themselves out of business. Welcome to the club. It is and is going to happen. I will be the first to admit I was wrong if America finds its balls and mans up and bucks the slide down the drain. I'm not too worried about having to apologize.

Tea party? Just another name for a minority group with an agenda that may affect one side of the coin, but will never affect the overall picture.

[Gunny]

The Left is a debased Marxist mad house.It will always fail,because it is based on human insanity provided by Satan.


Like this cartoon.+1

Which makes you no different than the cartoon.

[Gunny]

That is certainly a reasonable stance from which to start a debate.

Big picture. It will fail just as the Greeks and Romans failed. We're just next.

[fj1200]

What facts did I leave out of the grand compromise?

All the ones around it that I mentioned that you ignored.

[fj1200]

Got news for you. What you call conservatives now are progressives to me. Like I said, just depends on how old you are.

Damn suffrage eh?

[Gunny]

Damn suffrage eh?

Nope. Just an observation. I was called a liberal when I was young. None of my positions have changed much. Now I get called any-and-everything.

We can start with the traditional (not the progressive) definition of "liberal"; which, the right slings around like it's an insult.

People sling words around on both sides and have no clue what they mean. All they want to do is vilify the other side. When politics in the US becomes more about what's right and less about one side winning and losing, let me know. Otherwise, one side is as full of shit as the other.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria110808_cmyk20110808021459.jpg

[fj1200]

When politics in the US becomes more about what's right and less about one side winning and losing, let me know. Otherwise, one side is as full of shit as the other.

Political parties ARE about winning and losing and unfortunately with how wide the parties are apart from each other idea wise, it better be about winning and losing.

[ConHog]

Political parties ARE about winning and losing and unfortunately with how wide the parties are apart from each other idea wise, it better be about winning and losing.

No, it SHOULD be about both sides realizing that in most cases the answer is in the middle of what the two parties want.

[fj1200]

No, it SHOULD be about both sides realizing that in most cases the answer is in the middle of what the two parties want.

I disagree. First they need to decide on what the problem is and then a solution can be proposed not proposing a solution and then looking for a problem by which to implement it.

[red states rule]

I disagree. First they need to decide on what the problem is and then a solution can be proposed not proposing a solution and then looking for a problem by which to implement it.

Lets see.......

The problem is deficit spending

Solution - add $2 trillion to the national debt and cut the rate of growth in spending

Results - look at the Dow, the credit downgrade, and how the liberal media "reports" the results

Seems the R's blew it on this one

[fj1200]

Lets see.......

The problem is deficit spending

Solution - add $2 trillion to the national debt and cut the rate of growth in spending

Results - look at the Dow, the credit downgrade, and how the liberal media "reports" the results

Seems the R's blew it on this one

Do you actually have something NEW to add? Should I listen to Rush afternoon or wait for your highlights? One is a professional and disseminates the information in an entertaining way, the other...

The Dow... Falling before any debt deal announced.

The downgrade... Expected and a non-issue IMO as rates have continued to fall. It sure will be helpful when they start to work on the next deal though.

The liberal media... Rush always tells you not to wait for the media to back your position.

[Gunny]

Political parties ARE about winning and losing and unfortunately with how wide the parties are apart from each other idea wise, it better be about winning and losing.

Oh I agree. Maybe somebody needs to remind these "tea partiers" and "I'm not voting because I don't get my way" types that they're going to have to compromise on a candidate with mainstream conservatives or Obama will have 4 more years to complete his destruction.

[fj1200]

Oh I agree. Maybe somebody needs to remind these "tea partiers" and "I'm not voting because I don't get my way" types that they're going to have to compromise on a candidate with mainstream conservatives or Obama will have 4 more years to complete his destruction.

So we can compromise and get another McCain?

[Gunny]

So we can compromise and get another McCain?

Don't compromise and get 4 more years of Obama. Some folks need to wake up to the fact those are the ONLY options, and like them or not, we're stuck with them.

Then again, perhaps the GOP won't let the media decide who their candidate is in 2012 as they did in 2008?

[fj1200]

Don't compromise and get 4 more years of Obama. Some folks need to wake up to the fact those are the ONLY options, and like them or not, we're stuck with them.

Then again, perhaps the GOP won't let the media decide who their candidate is in 2012 as they did in 2008?

McCain was the compromise candidate was he not? And we see where that got us. A good candidate who can effectively communicate conservative principles and strategies is the best person to counter BO's blather.

[ConHog]

I disagree. First they need to decide on what the problem is and then a solution can be proposed not proposing a solution and then looking for a problem by which to implement it.



Well, yeah that would be a pleasant change wouldn't it?

[red states rule]

Do you actually have something NEW to add? Should I listen to Rush afternoon or wait for your highlights? One is a professional and disseminates the information in an entertaining way, the other...

The Dow... Falling before any debt deal announced.

The downgrade... Expected and a non-issue IMO as rates have continued to fall. It sure will be helpful when they start to work on the next deal though.

The liberal media... Rush always tells you not to wait for the media to back your position.

Sorry if the facts get under your skin. Check the polls and you will see I am in the majority. Even CBS had to bru the results of their own poll - just like you are trying to do

The R's did NOTHING that they promised they would do. They are letting fear make their decisions not reality

[red states rule]

Don't compromise and get 4 more years of Obama. Some folks need to wake up to the fact those are the ONLY options, and like them or not, we're stuck with them.

Then again, perhaps the GOP won't let the media decide who their candidate is in 2012 as they did in 2008?


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/177591.JPG

[fj1200]

Sorry if the facts get under your skin. Check the polls and you will see I am in the majority. Even CBS had to bru the results of their own poll - just like you are trying to do

Facts don't get under my skin, your ignorance of the other facts do. The market rebounded big today, there goes half your argument.


The R's did NOTHING that they promised they would do. They are letting fear make their decisions not reality

Your version. But you've got cartoons and made up signs, so that's cool.

[red states rule]

Facts don't get under my skin, your ignorance of the other facts do. The market rebounded big today, there goes half your argument.



Your version.

The market rebounded due to the Fed saying they would keep interest rates near zero thru 2013. When ws the last time the Fed gave a timeline on interest rates?

Looks like you took the lefts civiltiy training class FJ. Sorry if you are not man enough to admit the R's caved

It is not hard to see if you look at the losuy deal they made

[fj1200]

The market rebounded due to the Fed saying they would keep interest rates near zero thru 2013. When ws the last time the Fed gave a timeline on interest rates?

Looks like you took the lefts civiltiy training class FJ. Sorry if you are not man enough to admit the R's caved

It is not hard to see if you look at the losuy deal they made

So the market falling before the debt deal was even signed was due to the debt deal and then the rebound is only because of Fed actions not any sort of overselling. Cherry picking more than normal... a lefty tactic if I ever saw one. ;)

The "deal" is completely meaningless because they "cut" based on out year spending. Nothing changed and if the deal "cut" 4BB instead of 2BB it's utterly meaningless because it supposedly ties future elected officials to a useless deal made today. Long-term deficit spending is completely controlled by entitlements which weren't touched and won't be until Republicans control everything, even then they couldn't get it done under Bush.

[red states rule]

So the market falling before the debt deal was even signed was due to the debt deal and then the rebound is only because of Fed actions not any sort of overselling. Cherry picking more than normal... a lefty tactic if I ever saw one. ;)

The "deal" is completely meaningless because they "cut" based on out year spending. Nothing changed and if the deal "cut" 4BB instead of 2BB it's utterly meaningless because it supposedly ties future elected officials to a useless deal made today. Long-term deficit spending is completely controlled by entitlements which weren't touched and won't be until Republicans control everything, even then they couldn't get it done under Bush.

Not cherrypicking at all. The Dow had a 600 point plus swing and it was not until AFTER the Fed's announcement did the market take off

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/09/bulls-storm-back-into-town-stage-430-point-surge/

Your last paragraph confirms the R's caved. they did not get the real cuts they promised. They did not get a dollar for dollar in cuts and debt increase. So Obama won this and the furture generations are on the hook for another $2 trillion dollars

If this is the "best" the R's can do - they will NEVER win control of Congress and the Oval Office

[fj1200]

Not cherrypicking at all. The Dow had a 600 point plus swing and it was not until AFTER the Fed's announcement did the market take off

Yup, cherry picking or did you just miss that the market was up about 200 points most of the day.


Your last paragraph confirms the R's caved. they did not get the real cuts they promised. They did not get a dollar for dollar in cuts and debt increase. So Obama won this and the furture generations are on the hook for another $2 trillion dollars

If this is the "best" the R's can do - they will NEVER win control of Congress and the Oval Office

Does no such thing, they weren't going to get real cuts. That whole 1/2 of 1/3 thing. If they don't win it's because they're idiots and can't capitalize on this. Your own BO approval graphs prove he didn't "win."

[red states rule]

Yup, cherry picking or did you just miss that the market was up about 200 points most of the day.



Does no such thing, they weren't going to get real cuts. That whole 1/2 of 1/3 thing. If they don't win it's because they're idiots and can't capitalize on this. Your own BO approval graphs prove he didn't "win."

Eh, did you miss the fact there was a 600 point swing and the market was flat until the Fed released it statement? I checked the market around 2PM and the Dow was down triple digit

Like the budget deal, you will cling to anything that keeps your head above water. Yes Obama is tanking but the R's have to offer something better and give the people CONFIDENCE they will do what they say will do

Hell they did not CUT ONE CENT in spending FJ. They got NOTHING! So that is the best they could do? Nothing?

After they cave to Obama on the debt deal, it will be hard to inspire any confidence

[fj1200]

Eh, did you miss the fact there was a 600 point swing and the market was flat until the Fed released it statement? I checked the market around 2PM and the Dow was down triple digit

Like the budget deal, you will cling to anything that keeps your head above water. Yes Obama is tanking but the R's have to offer something better and give the people CONFIDENCE they will do what they say will do

Hell they did not CUT ONE CENT in spending FJ. They got NOTHING! So that is the best they could do? Nothing?

After they cave to Obama on the debt deal, it will be hard to inspire any confidence

So based on the debt deal no one is going to vote for Republicans again but based on BO's falling approval ratings no one is going to vote for BO. Yup, the Republicans are dead in the water. :rolleyes:

Do I wish they had done better? Sure but they weren't going to get anything near what Rush err, you apparently wanted.

[ConHog]

So based on the debt deal no one is going to vote for Republicans again but based on BO's falling approval ratings no one is going to vote for BO. Yup, the Republicans are dead in the water. :rolleyes:

Do I wish they had done better? Sure but they weren't going to get anything near what Rush err, you apparently wanted.

Given the realities I'm happy , for now, that they at least slowed the libbies down. The next step is to reverse some of the damage they have done.

[Kathianne]

The market rebounded due to the Fed saying they would keep interest rates near zero thru 2013. When ws the last time the Fed gave a timeline on interest rates?

Looks like you took the lefts civiltiy training class FJ. Sorry if you are not man enough to admit the R's caved

It is not hard to see if you look at the losuy deal they made

RSR, the fed gave a date of sorts in a divided way which is highly unusual. I agree with them though, as it adds 'certainty' in what has been a very uncertain three years. I'd love to see the Republicans push through another version of cut, cap, and balance. It might get a different reception. In any case, if the Congress would say, 'No new taxes through mid-1213 and no new spending through the same period,' we might actually see some real growth. Businesses and the wealthy are sitting on tons of cash and would certainly like to be able to know what the next two years might entail. This would help.

What the 'Republicans' agreed to was reality. There wasn't going to be a different plan acceptable to the Senate, which was Obama and Reid's decision, over which the Republicans/Tea Party/House had no option about. If they didn't get it done, this whole credit rating and the markets would fall squarely on the Republicans. In this case it's seen for what it is, the patient blaming the doctor for his lung cancer.

[red states rule]

RSR, the fed gave a date of sorts in a divided way which is highly unusual. I agree with them though, as it adds 'certainty' in what has been a very uncertain three years. I'd love to see the Republicans push through another version of cut, cap, and balance. It might get a different reception. In any case, if the Congress would say, 'No new taxes through mid-1213 and no new spending through the same period,' we might actually see some real growth. Businesses and the wealthy are sitting on tons of cash and would certainly like to be able to know what the next two years might entail. This would help.

What the 'Republicans' agreed to was reality. There wasn't going to be a different plan acceptable to the Senate, which was Obama and Reid's decision, over which the Republicans/Tea Party/House had no option about. If they didn't get it done, this whole credit rating and the markets would fall squarely on the Republicans. In this case it's seen for what it is, the patient blaming the doctor for his lung cancer.

The key word in your post Kat was 'certainty'. Something that was lacking for investors.

In the last 2 weeks we got bad news on personal spending, manufacturing, GDP, and unemployment. Theys saw a debt deal with no cuts whatsoever. The market rebouded somewhat after the Fed report

As far as the R's in DC - they need to look what happend in WI last night. Everyone wrote Gov Walker and the R's there off as to "extreme". He stood up to the Dems, the unions, and the liberal media

Well, I will let the results do the talking on that one

[Kathianne]

The key word in your post Kat was 'certainty'. Something that was lacking for investors.

In the last 2 weeks we got bad news on personal spending, manufacturing, GDP, and unemployment. Theys saw a debt deal with no cuts whatsoever. The market rebouded somewhat after the Fed report

As far as the R's in DC - they need to look what happend in WI last night. Everyone wrote Gov Walker and the R's there off as to "extreme". He stood up to the Dems, the unions, and the liberal media

Well, I will let the results do the talking on that one

Yep, i agree with 'certainty.' That's what my post was about. Not certain, ;) what WI has to do with that, though I'm very happy that the Dems didn't succeed in their attempt to circumvent the elections, at least in whole.

[red states rule]

Yep, i agree with 'certainty.' That's what my post was about. Not certain, ;) what WI has to do with that, though I'm very happy that the Dems didn't succeed in their attempt to circumvent the elections, at least in whole.

The point is Kat, the R's in WI would not "compromise". A lesson that needs to be learned by the R's in DC

Dems hit them with everything they got and craped out. What a great way to start the day!

[red states rule]

BTW, the R's had the voters behind them when they were talking about REAL cuts, and they blew it

67% Favor Finding Spending Cuts in All Government Programs

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/67_favor_finding_spending_cuts_in_all_government_p rograms

[fj1200]

Given the realities I'm happy , for now, that they at least slowed the libbies down. The next step is to reverse some of the damage they have done.

It's going to have to be a multi step process, with control comes real ability to do something. Control is not what they have.

[Gunny]

McCain was the compromise candidate was he not? And we see where that got us. A good candidate who can effectively communicate conservative principles and strategies is the best person to counter BO's blather.

You're missing the point. There are too many people calling themselves conservative who will not compromise with other people calling themselves conservative, and quite frankly, at least half of them have no clue what conservative is. I'm not talking about compromising with the Dems or the media.

As log as there is no agreement on ONE person by any and all in-house, there will be no united front against the Dems and they win again.

How's that "no compromise" "I'm not voting unless it's my guy" mentality worked for you the past 2+ years?

[fj1200]

You're missing the point. There are too many people calling themselves conservative who will not compromise with other people calling themselves conservative, and quite frankly, at least half of them have no clue what conservative is. I'm not talking about compromising with the Dems or the media.

As log as there is no agreement on ONE person by any and all in-house, there will be no united front against the Dems and they win again.

How's that "no compromise" "I'm not voting unless it's my guy" mentality worked for you the past 2+ years?

Yes, yes, you're the only one that know the archaic definitions of political terms. :rolleyes:

There WILL be agreement on ONE person in approximately 571 elections for Federal positions next year and there will agreement and rallying around them. I for one like it when there is passion about beliefs and not the belief that compromise will somehow turn out the optimal solution.

[jimnyc]

There WILL be agreement on ONE person in approximately 571 elections for Federal positions next year and there will agreement and rallying around them. I for one like it when there is passion about beliefs and not the belief that compromise will somehow turn out the optimal solution.

I'll remember this when there are votes on queers and the passion of the people get to vote, they don't compromise, and the deviants once again get shoved back in the closets.

[Kathianne]

The point is Kat, the R's in WI would not "compromise". A lesson that needs to be learned by the R's in DC

Dems hit them with everything they got and craped out. What a great way to start the day!

Which is true, so tell me, which party had control during that time? I'll tell you, the 'R's' did. Now in DC, this term? Oh yeah, the 'R's' have the majority of one house, enough to filibuster the other. They do not control the veto.

[fj1200]

I'll remember this when there are votes on queers and the passion of the people get to vote, they don't compromise, and the deviants once again get shoved back in the closets.

Not sure what they really has to do with the issue at hand in this thread but states should have the ability to make their own laws on the subject just as NY did, or don't you agree with the likes of Cheney (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/02/nation/na-cheney2) and Ted Olson (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/us/19olson.html?pagewanted=all)? If you think any vote on the matter will "shove" anyone anywhere you're in a complete state of denial because the trend seems to be against you.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vqf79nrpfewws7ibh-1u-q.gif
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

[jimnyc]

If you think any vote on the matter will "shove" anyone anywhere you're in a complete state of denial because the trend seems to be against you.

So tell me, if I'm the one in denial, what has happened thus far in the states when these questions have been asked directly of the voters, and not decided by courts or politicians? Get back to me with those stats when you're out of denial.

[fj1200]

So tell me, if I'm the one in denial, what has happened thus far in the states when these questions have been asked directly of the voters, and not decided by courts or politicians? Get back to me with those stats when you're out of denial.

I fully support states being able to set their own laws. The long term trend is clear however as shown.

[jimnyc]

I fully support states being able to set their own laws. The long term trend is clear however as shown.

The trend shows that in every state that allowed the vote to go all the way to the people, they set it into the state constitution that marriage was between one man and one woman. So much for the polls huh? That's why I like voting results better.