The Bluegrass Boondoggle

[libertine]

On Derby Day, How Republicans Help Millionaire Horse Owners Pay Less In Taxes

The 138th running of the Kentucky Derby is today, and more than 100,000 fans will pack Churchill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky to see the first leg of the Triple Crown. What they will also see is a select group of horse owners who get to pay less in taxes thanks to a hand-out from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

In a tight race to keep his Senate seat in 2008, McConnell inserted the “Bluegrass Boondoggle” into the Farm Bill. The Boondoggle gave a special tax break to millionaire horse owners, costing the government $126 million over 10 years.

Though McConnell now decries wasteful spending, he publicly touted the millionaire-only earmark in 2008, and the GOP has done everything it can to preserve the tax break since. The House GOP budget, which gives massive tax breaks to the rich that Republicans say will be paid for by closing tax loopholes, doesn’t touch the Bluegrass Boondoggle.

That budget has wide support throughout the party and has been endorsed by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, another fan of humongous, unpaid-for tax cuts for the richest Americans. (Romney is, of course, also a fan of fancy horses.)

The rest:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/05/478681/on-derby-day-how-republicans-help-millionaire-horse-owners-pay-less-in-taxes/

[Wind Song]

On Derby Day, How Republicans Help Millionaire Horse Owners Pay Less In Taxes

The 138th running of the Kentucky Derby is today, and more than 100,000 fans will pack Churchill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky to see the first leg of the Triple Crown. What they will also see is a select group of horse owners who get to pay less in taxes thanks to a hand-out from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

In a tight race to keep his Senate seat in 2008, McConnell inserted the “Bluegrass Boondoggle” into the Farm Bill. The Boondoggle gave a special tax break to millionaire horse owners, costing the government $126 million over 10 years.

Though McConnell now decries wasteful spending, he publicly touted the millionaire-only earmark in 2008, and the GOP has done everything it can to preserve the tax break since. The House GOP budget, which gives massive tax breaks to the rich that Republicans say will be paid for by closing tax loopholes, doesn’t touch the Bluegrass Boondoggle.

That budget has wide support throughout the party and has been endorsed by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, another fan of humongous, unpaid-for tax cuts for the richest Americans. (Romney is, of course, also a fan of fancy horses.)

The rest:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/05/478681/on-derby-day-how-republicans-help-millionaire-horse-owners-pay-less-in-taxes/

Pardon if I'm unsurprised. The GOP is the party of the rich and priveleged.

[libertine]

Pardon if I'm unsurprised. The GOP is the party of the rich and priveleged.

Of course it's unsurprising...but Republicans seem to have a short memory, especially the ones in Congress. Eight years of spending like drunken sailors, but now it's time to tighten the belt and decry the "spending" of Democrats. Same old shit.

[Wind Song]

Of course it's unsurprising...but Republicans seem to have a short memory, especially the ones in Congress. Eight years of spending like drunken sailors, but now it's time to tighten the belt and decry the "spending" of Democrats. Same old shit.

Rescinding the Bush Tax Cuts four years ago would have done a lot to help our economy.

[libertine]

Rescinding the Bush Tax Cuts four years ago would have done a lot to help our economy.

But tax cuts for the wealthy created jobs...

...oh, wait....

[Howard Roark]

Conservatives are right when they call for spending cuts. They just can't seem to agree on what to cut. To their credit, the teabag freshmen want to cut defense spending.

Established repubs....especially Boehner, who brings home the bacon in a big way via contracts for obsolete aircraft the Pentagon doesn't want, won't budge on defense spending.

They're big on talk. As far as these tax handouts go, the general concensus is that taxes are bad, and any monies earned are the property of the person who holds the money...not the govt's.

There has to be a raise in revenue, coupled with cuts in spending, if we're going to change anything in this country.

This Congress is incapable of accomplishing anything. Time to clean house.

[libertine]

Conservatives are right when they call for spending cuts. They just can't seem to agree on what to cut. To their credit, the teabag freshmen want to cut defense spending.

Established repubs....especially Boehner, who brings home the bacon in a big way via contracts for obsolete aircraft the Pentagon doesn't want, won't budge on defense spending.

They're big on talk. As far as these tax handouts go, the general concensus is that taxes are bad, and any monies earned are the property of the person who holds the money...not the govt's.

There has to be a raise in revenue, coupled with cuts in spending, if we're going to change anything in this country.

This Congress is incapable of accomplishing anything. Time to clean house.

Taxes are much lower now than they've been in decades. The laws of propaganda prove effective (repeat a lie often enough...), to the point that the working poor in red states are voting against their own interests. The wealthy job creators deserve the tax breaks, goes the meme. Poor people chose their plight by being lazy, goes the meme. Taxed Enough Already [taxes are lower than they've been in decades], goes the meme....

[Howard Roark]

Taxes are much lower now than they've been in decades. The laws of propaganda prove effective (repeat a lie often enough...), to the point that the working poor in red states are voting against their own interests. The wealthy job creators deserve the tax breaks, goes the meme. Poor people chose their plight by being lazy, goes the meme. Taxed Enough Already [taxes are lower than they've been in decades], goes the meme....

Agree 100%. I see it on various boards, and on various news outlets. The fact is, Obama's supporters are disgusted with his refusal to change the the status quo.

I find it amusing when some refer to Obama's failed policies. They're the SAME failed policies we've seen for a decade.

[libertine]

Agree 100%. I see it on various boards, and on various news outlets. The fact is, Obama's supporters are disgusted with his refusal to change the the status quo.

I find it amusing when some refer to Obama's failed policies. They're the SAME failed policies we've seen for a decade.

And the other myth - that we're "going broke". Wrong. It's about how the money's appropriated. Spending culture is the same under Obama as it was under Bush: defense spending is sacrosanct, corporate welfare won't even be discussed (since it bought almost every member of Congress), 'free market' solutions will be trotted out to justify privatization schemes and 'socialism'* continues to be the bogeyman du jour in response to appeals for programs/remedies on behalf of the poor, the working class, education, unions, etc.

*unless we're talking about the banks and Wall Street, who privatize profits and socialize losses....

[SassyLady]

I'm pretty sure not all Kentucky Derby racehorse owners are Republican. Likewise, I'm pretty sure there are just as many priviledged Democrat millionares.

[libertine]

I'm pretty sure not all Kentucky Derby racehorse owners are Republican. Likewise, I'm pretty sure there are just as many priviledged Democrat millionares.

Pretty sure Mitch McConnell's a Republican. This is his baby.

[SassyLady]

Of course it's unsurprising...but Republicans seem to have a short memory, especially the ones in Congress. Eight years of spending like drunken sailors, but now it's time to tighten the belt and decry the "spending" of Democrats. Same old shit.

So, who do you think has controlled Congress for the last eight years? Dems or Repubs?

[keyser soze]

And the other myth - that we're "going broke". Wrong. It's about how the money's appropriated. Spending culture is the same under Obama as it was under Bush: defense spending is sacrosanct, corporate welfare won't even be discussed (since it bought almost every member of Congress), 'free market' solutions will be trotted out to justify privatization schemes and 'socialism'* continues to be the bogeyman du jour in response to appeals for programs/remedies on behalf of the poor, the working class, education, unions, etc.

*unless we're talking about the banks and Wall Street, who privatize profits and socialize losses....
One thing we are not....is broke..

[SassyLady]

Pretty sure Mitch McConnell's a Republican. This is his baby.
Do you know for a fact that none of the Dems in Congress voted this in?

[Nukeman]

Agree 100%. I see it on various boards, and on various news outlets. The fact is, Obama's supporters are disgusted with his refusal to change the the status quo.

I find it amusing when some refer to Obama's failed policies. They're the SAME failed policies we've seen for a decade.And since they are the SAME policies that makes it OK?? Is that what you're saying?? Most of us were disgusted with the policies of Bush and the dem held congress and senate yet becasue Obama stays the course that make it ok in your's eyes. If it was wrong than it's wrong now.. Or are you willing to give Obama a pass since he's democrat?????

[Howard Roark]

Do you know for a fact that none of the Dems in Congress voted this in?

It was attached to the Farm Bill.

[libertine]

Do you know for a fact that none of the Dems in Congress voted this in?

Where in my posts did I say that? Oh, that's right - I didn't. The point isn't 'what party' - it's Mitch 'Democrat Spending Is Out of Control' McConnell's utterly unsurprising hypocrisy.

It's why McConnell has no integrity on the subject of spending.

[SassyLady]

Where in my posts did I say that? Oh, that's right - I didn't. The point isn't 'what party' - it's Mitch 'Democrat Spending Is Out of Control' McConnell's utterly unsurprising hypocrisy.

It's why McConnell has no integrity on the subject of spending.If Dems control Congress then they should not have let this pass.

[SassyLady]

It was attached to the Farm Bill.
And Dems are in no way responsible for any part of this boondoggle?

[libertine]

If Dems control Congress then they should not have let this pass.

They don't. A simple majority is obsolete now. Haven't you heard?

[Howard Roark]

And Dems are in no way responsible for any part of this boondoggle?

I think the issue here, is the public call for less 'pork', and the behind the scenes actions of the same hypocrites.

[Nukeman]

If Dems control Congress then they should not have let this pass.This is exactly the point the dems seem to keep missing, they have held the house and senate for over 6 years now yet everything is the Repubs fault!! They are are just too narrow minded to admit it!!! they (dems) like to throw out that the rep are out of touch yet they have the same issues in their own house, just refuse to see it!!

[SassyLady]

They don't. A simple majority is obsolete now. Haven't you heard?

So, who controls Congress?

[Howard Roark]

This is exactly the point the dems seem to keep missing, they have held the house and senate for over 6 years now yet everything is the Repubs fault!! They are are just too narrow minded to admit it!!! they (dems) like to through out that the rep are out of touch yet they ahve the same issues in their own house, jsut refuse to see it!!

You do realize that it takes 60 votes to bring anything to a vote in the Senate?

'Holding' the House and Senate means nothing.

[Nukeman]

I think the issue here, is the public call for less 'pork', and the behind the scenes actions of the same hypocrites.That is EVERY politican in office as we type...
Term limits for all members of every branch!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SassyLady]

I think the issue here, is the public call for less 'pork', and the behind the scenes actions of the same hypocrites.
Then point out all the hypocrites, not just those of your opposing party.

[Nukeman]

You do realize that it takes 60 votes to bring anything to a vote in the Senate?

'Holding' the House and Senate means nothing. YOU do realize that the dems held that!!!

[Howard Roark]

That is EVERY politican in office as we type...
Term limits for all members of every branch!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We agree on term limits. Are you saying democrats call for reduced spending as their campaign platforms?

[libertine]

So, who controls Congress?

The Republicans, with their handy filibuster.

[Howard Roark]

YOU do realize that the dems held that!!!

Stop being silly.

[Howard Roark]

Hmmmm....great software here, but you have to wait 30 seconds between posts?

I thought I was rid of that when I left the antiquated Vbulletin boards

[SassyLady]

You do realize that it takes 60 votes to bring anything to a vote in the Senate?

'Holding' the House and Senate means nothing.
Then it meant nothing before Obama either. Assigning blame to just your opposing party is kinda hypocritical.

They are all out for themselves.

[SassyLady]

The Republicans, with their handy filibuster.
Are you saying Dems have never used the filibuster?

[Nukeman]

Stop being silly.
how am I being silly, did they or did they not (the dems)hold a super majority in the senate???? Are you saying they didn't

[SassyLady]

Hmmmm....great software here, but you have to wait 30 seconds between posts?

I thought I was rid of that when I left the antiquated Vbulletin boards
New member....already complaining. How liberal of you.

[libertine]

Are you saying Dems have never used the filibuster?

No. Learn to read. The filibuster is being used by the Republicans to override the Democratic majority. That's what I wrote.

Should I write it again for you?

[Nukeman]

No. Learn to read. The filibuster is being used by the Republicans to override the Democratic majority. That's what I wrote.

Should I write it again for you?Is it illegal??? Is it unconstitutional?:poke:


Do yo feel that the spending should go unchecked??

[SassyLady]

No. Learn to read. The filibuster is being used by the Republicans to override the Democratic majority. That's what I wrote.

Should I write it again for you?

Well, perhaps you need to take some history lessons. It is not just a tactic used by Republicans. Should I send you a history tutor.

[Howard Roark]

New member....already complaining. How liberal of you.

Not complaining. I'm surprised. I thought Vbulletin got rid of that a long time ago? This place seems to be a nice version.

[Trigg]

We agree on term limits. Are you saying democrats call for reduced spending as their campaign platforms?


It's nice to see a lib that supports term limits in congress.

To answer your question, NO I don't think any dem has run on reducing spending. Why is that??

[Trigg]

Pardon if I'm unsurprised. The GOP is the party of the rich and priveleged.

it's also known as the party of the middle class that tired of being screwed.

[Howard Roark]

It's nice to see a lib that supports term limits in congress.

To answer your question, NO I don't think any dem has run on reducing spending. Why is that??

The issue is those who DO run on that platform, and play the same old game behind closed doors.

[libertine]

The issue is those who DO run on that platform, and play the same old game behind closed doors.

And the 'anti-Special Interest' tea party Congressmen, like these guys:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-30/tea-party-congressmen-accept-cash-from-bailed-out-bankers.html

[SassyLady]

And the 'anti-Special Interest' tea party Congressmen, like these guys:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-30/tea-party-congressmen-accept-cash-from-bailed-out-bankers.html

From your article:


Lawmakers collecting contributions from industries they oversee is a common practice in Congress, and both parties take advantage of it, according to Anthony Corrado (http://topics.bloomberg.com/anthony-corrado/), a political scientist at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

[Howard Roark]

From your article:

But the teaparty was 'different', remember?

[libertine]

But the teaparty was 'different', remember?

Apparently Sassy Lady keeps missing that point and is stuck on 'but the Dems...' to excuse tea party hypocrisy.

Tea party candidates ran - and were elected - specifically because they took a stand to oppose the special interest money and its influence, to which they're all now caving.

[Nukeman]

Apparently Sassy Lady keeps missing that point and is stuck on 'but the Dems...' to excuse tea party hypocrisy.

Tea party candidates ran - and were elected - specifically because they took a stand to oppose the special interest money and its influence, to which they're all now caving.And yet you and other new dims here are all over the "Bush did it so whats your problem with Obama doing it?" YOU and your ilk continue to excuse the bad behaviour of Obama because thats the way its always been done.

I find it funny that even though there are some TEA party members that did not uphold the standards that they ran on, we have to foresake all the ideas they ran on!! Why do you cheapen the ideas that the TEA party stands for due to a few idiots that caved to the special interest. paint with a broad bruch much???

[keyser soze]

And yet you and other new dims here are all over the "Bush did it so whats your problem with Obama doing it?" YOU and your ilk continue to excuse the bad behaviour of Obama because thats the way its always been done.

I find it funny that even though there are some TEA party members that did not uphold the standards that they ran on, we have to foresake all the ideas they ran on!! Why do you cheapen the ideas that the TEA party stands for due to a few idiots that caved to the special interest. paint with a broad bruch much???

What are you talking about? Who has dismissed bad behavior by Obama..ie..what? What bad behavior are your referring to? I find nothing funny when it comes to my country and it's ability to survive...the tea party is astro turf...purely an effort by those with the money.

[SassyLady]

But the teaparty was 'different', remember?

They were. Remember?

[libertine]

And yet you and other new dims

Is this your term for 'idiot'? or did you mean 'Dem'? I'm neither, cartoon-man.


here are all over the "Bush did it so whats your problem with Obama doing it?" YOU and your ilk continue to excuse the bad behaviour of Obama because thats the way its always been done.

Oops. Wrong again, cartoon-man. The point being made here isn't that it's okay because 'Dems do it, too'; it's the hypocrisy that's being highlighted here. McConnell's whining about spending rings hollow and insincere because he's guilty of it himself. Understand?


I find it funny that even though there are some TEA party members that did not uphold the standards that they ran on, we have to foresake all the ideas they ran on!!

No one's saying that. You're within your rights to continue to put faith in people who promised to do the exact opposite of what they're doing now that they've been given the job.


Why do you cheapen the ideas that the TEA party stands for due to a few idiots that caved to the special interest. paint with a broad bruch much???

I don't cheapen their ideas; they do that all by themselves when they do a 180-degree turn on their own campaign platform promises.

[Nukeman]

What are you talking about? Who has dismissed bad behavior by Obama..ie..what? What bad behavior are your referring to? I find nothing funny when it comes to my country and it's ability to survive...the tea party is astro turf...purely an effort by those with the money.I say BS on this... The TEA party is an actuall true grassroot attempt at setting the govt back on the right path. Yet you and other like you have nothing but insults because a few renegged on their committment to THE PEOPLE!!! WE have to start somewhere and at that starting point there will be some wolves in sheep clothing!! So instead of excusing the current president with the "staus quo" why don't you and the other attempt to CHANGE it, like the TEA party has been trying to do.

You can try to cheapen the TEA party by saying its astroturf all you wnat that doesn not change the FACT it is truely a TRUE grassroot organization. Just becasue some corporate hacks latched on to the movement does not mean it isnt what it says it is, there will always be those that will take advantage and that is what happend with the TEA party!!

[Trigg]

The issue is those who DO run on that platform, and play the same old game behind closed doors.


The clear answer, at least to me, would be to impose term limits. I think that would keep more politicians honest.

[SassyLady]

Apparently Sassy Lady keeps missing that point and is stuck on 'but the Dems...' to excuse tea party hypocrisy.

Tea party candidates ran - and were elected - specifically because they took a stand to oppose the special interest money and its influence, to which they're all now caving.

Why are you so obsessed with the Tea Party hypocrisy and not the hypocrisy of Congress as a whole?

I'm pretty sure that all politicians of all parties have run on a platform that they later fell off of. Get over it. I surely cannot post every instance that this has happened or this board would become too boring to visit.

[keyser soze]

I say BS on this... The TEA party is an actuall true grassroot attempt at setting the govt back on the right path. Yet you and other like you have nothing but insults because a few renegged on their committment to THE PEOPLE!!! WE have to start somewhere and at that starting point there will be some wolves in sheep clothing!! So instead of excusing the current president with the "staus quo" why don't you and the other attempt to CHANGE it, like the TEA party has been trying to do.

You can try to cheapen the TEA party by saying its astroturf all you wnat that doesn not change the FACT it is truely a TRUE grassroot organization. Just becasue some corporate hacks latched on to the movement does not mean it isnt what it says it is, there will always be those that will take advantage and that is what happend with the TEA party!!
So not true. Any effort by the tea party is in line with the 1% which has little to nothing to do with what benefits the 99% look at who the leaders are and what the platform is...it's all about the most wealthy...you are useful tools at best. What is the real problem with Obama?

[Nukeman]

Is this your term for 'idiot'? or did you mean 'Dem'? I'm neither, cartoon-man..

Funny YOU use the term "teabagger" knowing full well that the TEA party Never used that to discribe themselves, does it strike a nerve with yo when someone insults you??





Oops. Wrong again, cartoon-man. The point being made here isn't that it's okay because 'Dems do it, too'; it's the hypocrisy that's being highlighted here. McConnell's whining about spending rings hollow and insincere because he's guilty of it himself. Understand?
yet YOU have repeatedly stated in your short time here that its OK for obama because its the "status quo" why do you excuse his behaviour??? Or at least excuse it?



No one's saying that. You're within your rights to continue to put faith in people who promised to do the exact opposite of what they're doing now that they've been given the job. Are you telling me that EVERY TEA party member has turned?? REALLY??




I don't cheapen their ideas; they do that all by themselves when they do a 180-degree turn on their own campaign platform promises There will always be a few idiots that tarnish what is a good thing, funny that YOU paint with such a broad brush...

[keyser soze]

Funny YOU use the term "teabagger" knowing full well that the TEA party Never used that to discribe themselves, does it strike a nerve with yo when someone insults you??





yet YOU have repeatedly stated in your short time here that its OK for obama because its the "status quo" why do you excuse his behaviour??? Or at least excuse it?


Are you telling me that EVERY TEA party member has turned?? REALLY??



There will always be a few idiots that tarnish what is a good thing, funny that YOU paint with such a broad brush...
Sorry to bread it to you but tea bagger is a term they chose for themselves....that's fact.

[Nukeman]

So not true. Any effort by the tea party is in line with the 1% which has little to nothing to do with what benefits the 99% look at who the leaders are and what the platform is...it's all about the most wealthy...you are useful tools at best. What is the real problem with Obama?
So YOU are happy with things staying exacatly the way they are, with NO chance of changing it, sounds to me that YOU are more in line with the 1% than the TEA party, most member of the TEAparty are SOLID middle class citizens. YOU can call me or other a "tool" to be used all you want, at least we wnat accountability and change, what the hell do YOU want??

[Trigg]

So not true. Any effort by the tea party is in line with the 1% which has little to nothing to do with what benefits the 99% look at who the leaders are and what the platform is...it's all about the most wealthy...you are useful tools at best. What is the real problem with Obama?

What the hell are you talking about??

The whole point of the teaparty was to balance the budget and spend less.

They wanted the gov. to live within it's means like every household in the country. How exactly is that the 1%???


Obama's SPENDING is the problem. His stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%, his bailout of the BIG 3, cash for clunkers.

He has no idea how to help the economy and has done nothing to help it in the 3 1/2 years he's been in charge. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH OBAMA.

[Nukeman]

Sorry to bread it to you but tea bagger is a term they chose for themselves....that's fact.The only assholes I have EVER heard refer to the TEA party as "teabaggers" are a bunch of whinny libs that don't like them, are you saying your a whinny lib and can't have an original thought for yourself so you have to tow the lib speaking points of insult all the time???

[Trigg]

Sorry to bread it to you but tea bagger is a term they chose for themselves....that's fact.


prove it.....

It's a derogatory term, everyone knows that.

so prove it

[SassyLady]

Sorry to bread it to you but tea bagger is a term they chose for themselves....that's fact.

No it isn't. How many Tea Party gatherings did you actually attend? Or are you just repeating the progressive liberal talking points?

[Wind Song]

And since they are the SAME policies that makes it OK?? Is that what you're saying?? Most of us were disgusted with the policies of Bush and the dem held congress and senate yet becasue Obama stays the course that make it ok in your's eyes. If it was wrong than it's wrong now.. Or are you willing to give Obama a pass since he's democrat?????

Q Have you EVER given the President credit for anything positive?

[keyser soze]

No it isn't. How many Tea Party gatherings did you actually attend? Or are you just repeating the progressive liberal talking points?

Anyone with the ability to google can see the truth about the tea baggers...

[SassyLady]

So not true. Any effort by the tea party is in line with the 1% which has little to nothing to do with what benefits the 99% look at who the leaders are and what the platform is...it's all about the most wealthy...you are useful tools at best. What is the real problem with Obama?

The real problem with Obama is that he is inexperienced in leading and really good in using the Fox Priven methods of intimidation.

[Trigg]

Anyone with the ability to google can see the truth about the tea baggers...



again, prove that the term is one the tea party chose, or admit that you lied.

[SassyLady]

Anyone with the ability to google can see the truth about the tea baggers...

Apparently you don't have the ability to google.

[Wind Song]

The real problem with Obama is that he is inexperienced in leading and really good in using the Fox Priven methods of intimidation.

What are the "Fox Priven methods of intimidation". All I've seen is the President bullied by the GOP for four years.

[Nukeman]

Q Have you EVER given the President credit for anything positive?To be honest with you WS I havent seen anything positive come out of washington since the early 80's...

I have said in other threads that there has been a few things that Obama has done that I like, one of which was the insurance for dependetnt children up to age 26, this gets your children all the way through college, now does that justify 5 trillion more in debt?? NO and that is one of my biggest problems with the current admin they have NO regard of how things are going to be payed for, what the hell happend to living in a budget you know those things EVERY middle class family has to do every week... We cant go into our boss and say "oh by the way I'm going to need you to pay me an extra 500.00 dollars for now on due to my buying stuff i really don't need". i know thats an over simplification but ultimately that is exactly what our govt is doing to us when they DON'T CUTSPENDING!!!!

[SassyLady]

What are the "Fox Priven methods of intimidation". All I've seen is the President bullied by the GOP for four years.

Here's one:

The government would begin to “force” higher taxation on the rich

[Wind Song]

To be honest with you WS I havent seen anything positive come out of washington since the early 80's...

I have said in other threads that there has been a few things that Obama has done that I like, one of which was the insurance for dependetnt children up to age 26, this gets your children all the way through college, now does that justify 5 trillion more in debt?? NO and that is one of my biggest problems with the current admin they have NO regard of how things are going to be payed for, what the hell happend to living in a budget you know those things EVERY middle class family has to do every week... We cant go into our boss and say "oh by the way I'm going to need you to pay me an extra 500.00 dollars for now on due to my buying stuff i really don't need". i know thats an over simplification but ultimately that is exactly what our govt is doing to us when they DON'T CUTSPENDING!!!!


Thanks. I'm happy to see you can credit the President with at least ONE good thing. For a long time, I've felt that our government no longer belongs to the people.

[Wind Song]

Here's one:

The government would begin to “force” higher taxation on the rich

Well, the government, thanks to Bush, has been very generous with the rich. Has that led to more jobs? No.

[Nukeman]

Thanks. I'm happy to see you can credit the President with at least ONE good thing. For a long time, I've felt that our government no longer belongs to the people.
Now WS give me something that you were proud of GW Bush doing, its the least you can do, I mean he was in for 8 years he had to have done something you were proud of??:poke:

[keyser soze]

The real problem with Obama is that he is inexperienced in leading and really good in using the Fox Priven methods of intimidation.
What crap....*yawn*

[Nukeman]

What crap....*yawn*
So what was his experience??? Care to tell us how he was qualified??

[keyser soze]

again, prove that the term is one the tea party chose, or admit that you lied.
Prove it wasn't....tea baggers all over until you decided it wasn't...LMAO...your term...own it.

[Wind Song]

Now WS give me something that you were proud of GW Bush doing, its the least you can do, I mean he was in for 8 years he had to have done something you were proud of??:poke:

I ws proud of him on 9/11

[keyser soze]

So what was his experience??? Care to tell us how he was qualified??

Care to tell me why he didn't?

[PostmodernProphet]

Of course it's unsurprising...but Republicans seem to have a short memory, especially the ones in Congress. Eight years of spending like drunken sailors, but now it's time to tighten the belt and decry the "spending" of Democrats. Same old shit.

isn't it funny how the Republicans spent like drunken sailors for eight years and the Dems took control.....then turned around and spent as much as the drunken sailors in only four years.....does that make them officially two times worse than drunken sailors?......

[Nukeman]

Prove it wasn't....tea baggers all over until you decided it wasn't...LMAO...your term...own it.
YOU made the statement YOU back up what you said, you can't make a blanket statement and have some one call you out on than tell them to prove otherwise.

personally I will take that as a "I don't have shit to back up what I said" would that about cover it for you???

[PostmodernProphet]

Pretty sure Mitch McConnell's a Republican. This is his baby.

he's also not a Tea Partier.....

[Nukeman]

Care to tell me why he didn't?You said he was I am curious as to why you think he was, or do you not know????
:poke:

[PostmodernProphet]

They don't. A simple majority is obsolete now. Haven't you heard?

you can't filibuster spending bills.....

[Trigg]

Prove it wasn't....tea baggers all over until you decided it wasn't...LMAO...your term...own it.



lol....you stated it was a term the tea party embraced....can't prove you're statement little man?????


You are then admitting you are a lier.......end of debate.



prove you statement

[libertine]

isn't it funny how the Republicans spent like drunken sailors for eight years and the Dems took control.....then turned around and spent as much as the drunken sailors in only four years.....does that make them officially two times worse than drunken sailors?......

It sure would, had they done so!

Except that they didn't.

Bush's debt was tallied leaving off the cost of two wars. Obama added it onto the books to present a realistic picture. Republicans, like Bush, like to pretend that number added by Obama was Obama-spending.

Oops. :dance:

[Nukeman]

It sure would, had they done so!

Except that they didn't.

Bush's debt was tallied leaving off the cost of two wars. Obama added it onto the books to present a realistic picture. Republicans, like Bush, like to pretend that number added by Obama was Obama-spending.

Oops. :dance:And Obama continued those wars that he said he wouldnt.. HMMM do yo think he added to the total bill?? How about his 1 trillion dollar health care plan... How about his 1 trillion dollar bailout of the banks?? wow thats 2 trillion dollars that BUSH had no hand in spending

[Trigg]

It sure would, had they done so!

Except that they didn't.

Bush's debt was tallied leaving off the cost of two wars. Obama added it onto the books to present a realistic picture. Republicans, like Bush, like to pretend that number added by Obama was Obama-spending.

Oops. :dance:

on this board we like to back up our statements with links. Care to do that???

Otherwise people tend to think you are full of shit.

LINK???

[PostmodernProphet]

Thanks. I'm happy to see you can credit the President with at least ONE good thing. For a long time, I've felt that our government no longer belongs to the people.

if he agreed to step down as president I would credit him for one good thing......

[Wind Song]

on this board we like to back up our statements with links. Care to do that???

Otherwise people tend to think you are full of shit.

LINK???


Isn't Trigg demanding? I don't think I've ever seen you put a link in your own posts. This new poster is allowed to state his opinion.

[Wind Song]

if he agreed to step down as president I would credit him for one good thing......


Right. You're probably one of those guys who thought Bush was your Regent.

[PostmodernProphet]

It sure would, had they done so!

Except that they didn't.

Bush's debt was tallied leaving off the cost of two wars. Obama added it onto the books to present a realistic picture. Republicans, like Bush, like to pretend that number added by Obama was Obama-spending.

Oops. :dance:

better check the math...the increase in the federal deficit due to Obama's spending is higher than the increase in the federal deficit due to Bush's spending....and that isn't even counting what happens when Obama's health care spending kicks in after he's out of office......

[Nukeman]

Isn't Trigg demanding? I don't think I've ever seen you put a link in your own posts. This new poster is allowed to state his opinion.Umm Trigg post LINKS all the time You however seem incapable of doing so, and so do the host of folks you brought with you!!! It isn;t demanding to have someone back up a statement, if you can't back it up it hearsay and you opinion which in a debate means NOTHING!!! Do you understand that??

[PostmodernProphet]

Right. You're probably one of those guys who thought Bush was your Regent.

fuck no....Bush never worked for us Taliban fundamentalists who thought we were God........

[libertine]

on this board we like to back up our statements with links. Care to do that???

Otherwise people tend to think you are full of shit.

LINK???

People like you, you mean? Aww, I'm just crushed over it.

Edit: a quick google and voila!

http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/199472/bush-s-2009-budget-leaves-out-cost-of-war


Plenty more where that came from, but you can use your own google. ;)

[SassyLady]

Well, the government, thanks to Bush, has been very generous with the rich. Has that led to more jobs? No.

Obama is rich.....what jobs has he created with his money and his tax savings?

[Nukeman]

People like you, you mean? Aww, I'm just crushed over it.
You have been asked by a couple of people to supply links to your statements, so which is it "you can't" or "you won't" if its the latter than just leave since you arent really here to debate only troll!!!
:poke:

[SassyLady]

Originally Posted by SassyLady http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=543783#post543783)
The real problem with Obama is that he is inexperienced in leading and really good in using the Fox Priven methods of intimidation.





What crap....*yawn*

Can't refute it, huh?

:facepalm99:

[SassyLady]

Prove it wasn't....tea baggers all over until you decided it wasn't...LMAO...your term...own it.

LMAO at your juvenile ... neener, neener, neener juvenile responses. But, s'ok, I understand ... this is how liberals debate.

[libertine]

You have been asked by a couple of people to supply links to your statements, so which is it "you can't" or "you won't" if its the latter than just leave since you arent really here to debate only troll!!!
:poke:

Stop crying, cartoon-man. I edited my post and gave you the first link that came up with a general search. Go blow your nose and read it.

[Trigg]

People like you, you mean? Aww, I'm just crushed over it.

Edit: a quick google and voila!

http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/199472/bush-s-2009-budget-leaves-out-cost-of-war


Plenty more where that came from, but you can use your own google. ;)

I don't have to google.

It's your statement so you have to prove it. That's how a debate works


Now back to the teaparty and the term teabagger.

Care to try to prove that one?

We are a couple of pages past YOUR original claim, either prove the statement or admit you lied.

[Wind Song]

Obama is rich.....what jobs has he created with his money and his tax savings?


You want to know how many new jobs have been created in the last month? I'll look it up for you. It was a six digit figure I think. I'll check.


How has Obama done on jobs?
3,577,000 gained since "trough" of recession.

How Has Obama done on private-sector jobs?
4,052,000 gained since the "trough" of the recession.

25 months of private-sector job growth.
18 months of over all job growth.



http://mollysmiddleamerica.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-many-jobs-has-obama-created-lost.html


These are Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[Nukeman]

Stop crying, cartoon-man. I edited my post and gave you the first link that came up with a general search. Go blow your nose and read it.
Ahh the old I edited my post so I can hide it there trick.. Instead of responding with a new post you place it in an old one so we "have to look for it" Your soo clever letrine!!! How did we ever survive until yo showed up to show us all those sneaky ways of debating..

By the way how is ASKING for YOU to prove your point "crying" the only one crying is you by refusing to prove your point.....
Way to go latrine... You're so special!!!:2up:

[keyser soze]

YOU made the statement YOU back up what you said, you can't make a blanket statement and have some one call you out on than tell them to prove otherwise.

personally I will take that as a "I don't have shit to back up what I said" would that about cover it for you???
Typical...but no matter...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/04/14/37536/lobbying-clients-teaparties/

Now..your turn..why isn't it? You don't have 'shit' just your opinion....


corporate lobbyists are helping to orchestrate the anti-Obama tea party protests. These lobbying-run front groups, along with promotion help from Fox News, are organizing the tea parties by calling right-wing activists and asking them to organize. They are also coordinating conference calls among activists, writing press releases, providing sign ideas, building websites supporting the protests, and distributing talking points so that the protesters can stay on message.

Today, FreedomWork’s Adam Brandon responded to the criticism that its efforts to organize these anti-Obama protests are ‘astroturf,’ saying that the organization’s work in coordinating and planning the events would be akin to “MoveOn’s model.” However, MoveOn is not run by corporate lobbyists and is funded by actual grassroots activists. On the other hand, the leader of FreedomWorks, Dick Armey, who is ranked as one of DC’s top “hired guns,” is a corporate lobbyist with a history of directing FreedomWorks to support the goals of his lobbying clients. For example:

– Armey’s FreedomWorks is actively organizing against health care reform. Indeed, Armey’s lobbying firm represents pharmaceutical companies, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, that oppose comparative effectiveness research in the health reform plan because such a program may cut into revenue for branded drugs.

– Armey’s lobbying firm represents the trade group for the life insurance industry. Indeed, FreedomWorks mobilizes its members for deregulated life insurance reform.

– Currently, FreedomWorks is focusing their energy activism on supporting the status quo reliance on fossil fuels. In addition to working for various domestic oil companies with a vested interest in opposing change, Armey’s lobbying firm represents Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the UAE, on energy related issues such as maintaining the U.S.-UAE relationship where “U.S companies have played major roles in the development of UAE energy resources, which represent about 10 percent of global oil reserves.”

– In 2006, Armey’s lobbying firm represented the Senado de Republica (Mexican Senate) on “enhancing U.S.-Mexico relations,” and specifically on immigration policy. Curiously, during the same period, Armey’s Freedom Works stood out as one of the few right wing organizations to boldly support comprehensive immigration reform.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/04/14/37536/lobbying-clients-teaparties/


Dick Army...oh yes...let's reflect...who is he??

[PostmodernProphet]

Obama has created jobs.....

and I've been on a fantastic diet.....every morning I weigh a few lbs less than I did the night before......by my calculation, since 1984 I have lost over 20,000 lbs..........

[libertine]

I don't have to google.

It's your statement so you have to prove it. That's how a debate works

Which I've done. Now we can just discuss it. And if you're interested (which I doubt) in edifying yourself on the subject further, you'll do your own research so you'll actually be able to bring an argument to the table.



Now back to the teaparty and the term teabagger.

Care to try to prove that one?

We are a couple of pages past YOUR original claim, either prove the statement or admit you lied.

Prove what? That the tea party called themselves 'tea baggers'? Unfortunately, they did. They've been backpedaling on it ever since they found out what tea bagging is. They wrongly think it's a sexual practice only used by homosexuals. Poor things.

As to the "YOUR claim" bullshit, as soon as you can find the post where I've called them 'tea baggers' myself, I'll gladly concede that I called them that AND provide a link for how they themselves came up with the term.

But you have to first find where I have called them 'tea baggers' on this forum.

And if you can't do that, then you have to admit you're an imbecile. Okay? :cool:

[Wind Song]

Obama has created jobs.....

and I've been on a fantastic diet.....every morning I weigh a few lbs less than I did the night before......by my calculation, since 1984 I have lost over 20,000 lbs..........

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Read them tubby.

[PostmodernProphet]

ignored the stupid bitch.....

[SassyLady]

You want to know how many new jobs have been created in the last month? I'll look it up for you. It was a six digit figure I think. I'll check.


How has Obama done on jobs?
3,577,000 gained since "trough" of recession.

How Has Obama done on private-sector jobs?
4,052,000 gained since the "trough" of the recession.

25 months of private-sector job growth.
18 months of over all job growth.



http://mollysmiddleamerica.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-many-jobs-has-obama-created-lost.html


These are Bureau of Labor Statistics.


Obama hired all those people? Wow!!! And you told me that with all the tax cuts to the rich no jobs were being created. You are contradicting yourself.

[Trigg]

Prove what? That the tea party called themselves 'tea baggers'? Unfortunately, they did. They've been backpedaling on it ever since they found out what tea bagging is. They wrongly think it's a sexual practice only used by homosexuals. Poor things.

As to the "YOUR claim" bullshit, as soon as you can find the post where I've called them 'tea baggers' myself, I'll gladly concede that I called them that AND provide a link for how they themselves came up with the term.

But you have to first find where I have called them 'tea baggers' on this forum.

And if you can't do that, then you have to admit you're an imbecile. Okay? :cool:


Then please do so. That is all that I have been asking for at least 3-4 pages now.


The tea party NEVER called themselves that name.


Either prove it with a link or admit that you've lied.

[keyser soze]

Which I've done. Now we can just discuss it. And if you're interested (which I doubt) in edifying yourself on the subject further, you'll do your own research so you'll actually be able to bring an argument to the table.




Prove what? That the tea party called themselves 'tea baggers'? Unfortunately, they did. They've been backpedaling on it ever since they found out what tea bagging is. They wrongly think it's a sexual practice only used by homosexuals. Poor things.

As to the "YOUR claim" bullshit, as soon as you can find the post where I've called them 'tea baggers' myself, I'll gladly concede that I called them that AND provide a link for how they themselves came up with the term.

But you have to first find where I have called them 'tea baggers' on this forum.

And if you can't do that, then you have to admit you're an imbecile. Okay? :cool:

It is pathetic...poor buggers...talk about sexually repressed LMAO

[PostmodernProphet]

Obama hired all those people? Wow!!! And you told me that with all the tax cuts to the rich no jobs were being created. You are contradicting yourself.

and yet, surprisingly, even after he created all those jobs, more people are unemployed then there were before he became president......

[libertine]

Then please do so. That is all that I have been asking for at least 3-4 pages now.


The tea party NEVER called themselves that name.


Either prove it with a link or admit that you've lied.

Silly TriggTrigg. You're supposed to cite the post where I called them 'tea baggers' on this forum.

You need to do that first, if you want that cookie.

[keyser soze]

Then please do so. That is all that I have been asking for at least 3-4 pages now.


The tea party NEVER called themselves that name.


Either prove it with a link or admit that you've lied.
They sure as hell did.LOL

[Nukeman]

Typical...but no matter...
?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/04/14/37536/lobbying-clients-teaparties/

Now..your turn..why isn't it? You don't have 'shit' just your opinion....

REally you're going to quote an article that list moveon.org as a grass roots organization??? REALLY??

well for
EVERY link from a lib site I can come up with another to refute it..

http://www.silive.com/opinion/columns/index.ssf/2010/07/tea_party_a_legitimate_grassro.html

http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html


Since its inception in February 2009, the Tea Party movement—with the help of viral videos and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter—almost instantly found a large and loyal following that has gained traction and supporters.
In fact, Gallup poll in late March 2010 revealed that 28% of Americans have a positive perception of the Tea Party movement.
A Televised Birth of a MovementCNBC's Rick Santelli is widely credited with launching the grassroots movement. While standing on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, 2009, he unleashed what can only be called a rant against the Obama Administration's proposal to help homeowners facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages.
"Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?" he asked. "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" He went on to suggest that he would organize a Chicago Tea Party in July, where capitalists would dump "some derivative securities into Lake Michigan." The video of his tirade became a YouTube hit, and thus the movement was born. Within weeks, Tea Party protests were sprouting up all over the country. The Tea Party name, a clear reference to the American colonists' dumping of tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes imposed by King George, stands as an acronym as well: Taxed Enough Already.


Read more: History of the Tea Party Movement — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html#ixzz1u3eC9tRK) http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html#ixzz1u3eC9tRK

[PostmodernProphet]

It is pathetic...poor buggers...talk about sexually repressed LMAO

it's amusing that liberals have to deflect to sexual innuendo when they're unable to counter the facts about government overspending......if they paid half as much attention to the economy as they did to insulting conservatives we might have solved the problem by now......

[SassyLady]

Typical...but no matter...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/04/14/37536/lobbying-clients-teaparties/

Now..your turn..why isn't it? You don't have 'shit' just your opinion....



Dick Army...oh yes...let's reflect...who is he??

Do you really think we believe anything posted from that source? I only got as far as MoveOn being funded by grassroots. Soros funded that with Peter Lewis ... real grassroots.

[Wind Song]

ignored the stupid bitch.....


If you'd truly ignored me you wouldn't have needed to call me a stupid bitch. I accept the bitch label proudly. I'm not stupid. I don't accept the stupid label.

[PostmodernProphet]

ignores the stupid bitch.....

[logroller]

Funny YOU use the term "teabagger" knowing full well that the TEA party Never used that to discribe themselves, does it strike a nerve with yo when someone insults you??



I didn't believe it myself; but actually, it appears they did. It all starts out so innocent; stealing a name from the revolutionary time-period in an effort to piggyback on the brave actions of our forefathers...sadly, it backfired when they mistakingly used a term which has sexual connotations. But make no mistake; those involved in the movement instigated the use of 'tea bag' as a verb with respect to their cause; not the libs.

From 'Rise of an Epithet' by Jay Nordlinger
...
<tbody>

<tbody>
The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

</tbody>


</tbody>
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=

[keyser soze]

If you'd truly ignored me you wouldn't have needed to call me a stupid bitch. I accept the bitch label proudly. I'm not stupid.
When it comes to rebuglican'ts...it's right up there with 'slut' walk...assholes...

[Nukeman]

Do you really think we believe anything posted from that source? I only got as far as MoveOn being funded by grassroots. Soros funded that with Peter Lewis ... real grassroots.
The only thing they can find are other lib sites that want to deminish the efforts of the TEA party, when you look at all sources it just isn't so..


Did you notice that the site he listed said moveon.org was a "true grass roots movement" LOL next they will say ACORN is grass roots as well.. Idiots one and all!!

[Trigg]

Silly TriggTrigg. You're supposed to cite the post where I called them 'tea baggers' on this forum.

You need to do that first, if you want that cookie.


Sorry to bread it to you but tea bagger is a term they chose for themselves....that's fact.

nope stupid lib.

You stated it was a term the teaparty chose for themselves.

7 pages on you are trying to dodge the original question.

Either provide a link to the teaparty embracing that term or admit you lied.

YOU calling then that term is irrelivent, you stating it as a fact that they embraced it is the debate.

come on prove to the board you know how to back up your statements.

[Wind Song]

Do you really think we believe anything posted from that source? I only got as far as MoveOn being funded by grassroots. Soros funded that with Peter Lewis ... real grassroots.

Do you think that Fox News is a good source? How about WND?

Just because a source leans left or right doesn't mean it's factually dishonest. Both sides have fucked up and both have admitted it. WND never admits a mistake.

[Nukeman]

I didn't believe it myself; but actually, it appears they did. It all starts out so innocent; stealing a name from the revolutionary time-period in an effort to piggyback on the brave actions of our forefathers...sadly, it backfired when they mistakingly used a term which has sexual connotations. But make no mistake; those involved in the movement instigated the use of 'tea bag' as a verb with respect to their cause; not the libs.
[QUOTE]
From 'Rise of an Epithet' by Jay Nordlinger
...
<tbody>


<tbody>
The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.


</tbody>


</tbody>
/QUOTE]http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=

The first jackass to use it in a derogatory way was the that stupid cow Rachel Maddow. She's the one that started this distasteful turd rolling down the hill, and like a bunch of jackals the libs jumped right on it and ran with it...

[SassyLady]

I didn't believe it myself; but actually, it appears they did. It all starts out so innocent; stealing a name from the revolutionary time-period in an effort to piggyback on the brave actions of our forefathers...sadly, it backfired when they mistakingly used a term which has sexual connotations. But make no mistake; those involved in the movement instigated the use of 'tea bag' as a verb with respect to their cause; not the libs.
[QUOTE]
From 'Rise of an Epithet' by Jay Nordlinger
...
<tbody>

<tbody>
The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

</tbody>


</tbody>
/QUOTE]http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=

Does this mean they called themselves teabaggers?

I mean I can say "fuck them" but I wouldn't call myself a "fucker".

[libertine]

nope stupid lib.

You stated it was a term the teaparty chose for themselves.

7 pages on you are trying to dodge the original question.

Either provide a link to the teaparty embracing that term or admit you lied.

YOU calling then that term is irrelivent, you stating it as a fact that they embraced it is the debate.

come on prove to the board you know how to back up your statements.

Here, TriggTrigg:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35024-The-Bluegrass-Boondoggle&p=543887#post543887

[Nukeman]

Do you think that Fox News is a good source? How about WND?

Just because a source leans left or right doesn't mean it's factually dishonest. Both sides have fucked up and both have admitted it. WND never admits a mistake.
Are you telling me that you and your bretheren would accept information from FOX or WND, especially after "kankor sore" changed the name from FOX to FAUX.. so cute that!!! so funny and original haven't ever seen that one before

[SassyLady]

Do you think that Fox News is a good source? How about WND?

Just because a source leans left or right doesn't mean it's factually dishonest. Both sides have fucked up and both have admitted it. WND never admits a mistake.

You call it "spinning" so, yeah, I believe that source will spin negativity about the Tea Party. Especially if they are basing it on something said by MoveOn.

[fj1200]

Pardon if I'm unsurprised. The GOP is the party of the rich and priveleged.

Do you need a listing of wealthy Democrats?


Rescinding the Bush Tax Cuts four years ago would have done a lot to help our economy.

How so?

[logroller]

[QUOTE=logroller;543887]I didn't believe it myself; but actually, it appears they did. It all starts out so innocent; stealing a name from the revolutionary time-period in an effort to piggyback on the brave actions of our forefathers...sadly, it backfired when they mistakingly used a term which has sexual connotations. But make no mistake; those involved in the movement instigated the use of 'tea bag' as a verb with respect to their cause; not the libs.


Does this mean they called themselves teabaggers?

I mean I can say "fuck them" but I wouldn't call myself a "fucker".

Eesh, sorry I jacked up the syntax on that post. I think I fixed it but now, but any who.

I'll wax semantics all day long; but if I say I'm gonna tea bag you, I shouldn't get all defensive when you call me a teabagger. Period

[Wind Song]

Are you telling me that you and your bretheren would accept information from FOX or WND, especially after "kankor sore" changed the name from FOX to FAUX.. so cute that!!! so funny and original haven't ever seen that one before


I'm saying that I know Fox is slanted but I don't think they are doctoring the facts. I've seen them apologize when they were wrong.

[Nukeman]

I'm saying that I know Fox is slanted but I don't think they are doctoring the facts. I've seen them apologize when they were wrong.I agree and what most wont do is seperate out the "editorialist" and the actual news shows, you have those on all the networks, I will say that from watching a number of "news" shows FOX actually does present BOTH sides, yes they seem slanted to most libs but that is due to the fact that they ALSO show conservatives in a good light as well!!

[SassyLady]

[QUOTE=SassyLady;543898]

Eesh, sorry I jacked up the syntax on that post. I think I fixed it but now, but any who.

I'll wax semantics all day long; but if I say I'm gonna tea bag you, I shouldn't get all defensive when you call me a teabagger. Period

I disagree. The original intent of the saying "tea bag them" had nothing to do with a sexual connotation. Those who are referring to the Tea Party members are using it as a negative connotation that was never espoused by the original members. And, people who say the Tea Party started calling themselves "teabaggers" are incorrect, or misled.

[Wind Song]

I agree and what most wont do is seperate out the "editorialist" and the actual news shows, you have those on all the networks, I will say that from watching a number of "news" shows FOX actually does present BOTH sides, yes they seem slanted to most libs but that is due to the fact that they ALSO show conservatives in a good light as well!!


Fox doesn't usually present both sides fairly. JMO.

[Nukeman]

Fox doesn't usually present both sides fairly. JMO.They do a better job than CNN or MSNBC that try to pass off Chris mathews and Rachel maddow as actual news shows!!

[Wind Song]

They do a better job than CNN or MSNBC that try to pass off Chris mathews and Rachel maddow as actual news shows!!


I wouldn't know. I NEVER watch network TV. I live in the middle of nowhere. I get my news from newspapers and the internet.

[libertine]

[QUOTE=logroller;543908]

I disagree. The original intent of the saying "tea bag them" had nothing to do with a sexual connotation. Those who are referring to the Tea Party members are using it as a negative connotation that was never espoused by the original members. And, people who say the Tea Party started calling themselves "teabaggers" are incorrect, or misled.

No they aren't. They were ignorant of the sexual connotation when they chose the term for themselves. They regretted the hell out of their choice when their opponents took advantage of every opportunity to call them by their chosen name, 'teabaggers'.

So, your point is that people who call the tea party 'teabaggers' are big meanies?

[logroller]

Ah crap. can't deal with the quotes being wrong.

I get what you're are saying. But the origin of the sexual meaning was around when they used it; so the jokes on them. It be like me going about talking about how gay I am. The finding out gay means homosexual and getting all pissed because of it.

Full disclosure, I don't like the fact they're recycling the phrase 'tea party'; which obviously and intentionally harkens to the Boston Tea Party, right? Then they use a term which carries with it sexual connotations...its just sweet irony IMHO. If they don't like it, then come up with a unique name for your movement...after all, thats why the tea bagging thing caught on IMO, its unique; whereas tea party, isn't.

[fj1200]

People like you, you mean? Aww, I'm just crushed over it.

Edit: a quick google and voila!

http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/199472/bush-s-2009-budget-leaves-out-cost-of-war


Plenty more where that came from, but you can use your own google. ;)

Just because it wasn't in the budget doesn't mean it wasn't tallied in the debt figures.

[SassyLady]

[QUOTE=SassyLady;543915]

No they aren't. They were ignorant of the sexual connotation when they chose the term for themselves. They regretted the hell out of their choice when their opponents took advantage of every opportunity to call them by their chosen name, 'teabaggers'.

So, your point is that people who call the tea party 'teabaggers' are big meanies?

No, "big meannies" is something a liberal would say. I would say they are being insensitive and juvenile.

[libertine]

Ah crap. can't deal with the quotes being wrong.

I get what you're are saying. But the origin of the sexual meaning was around when they used it; so the jokes on them. It be like me going about talking about how gay I am. The finding out gay means homosexual and getting all pissed because of it.

Full disclosure, I don't like the fact they're recycling the phrase 'tea party'; which obviously and intentionally harkens to the Boston Tea Party, right? Then they use a term which carries with it sexual connotations...its just sweet irony IMHO. If they don't like it, then come up with a unique name for your movement...after all, thats why the tea bagging thing caught on IMO, its unique; whereas tea party, isn't.

Amen brother.

[logroller]

Come to think of it, why is being called a tea bagger such a bad thing? I'd be more pissed off at being called a tea baggee.(sp):dance:

[libertine]

Just because it wasn't in the budget doesn't mean it wasn't tallied in the debt figures.

Okay, your turn. Show us where it was shown in Bush's debt figures.

[fj1200]

You want to know how many new jobs have been created in the last month? I'll look it up for you. It was a six digit figure I think. I'll check.


How has Obama done on jobs?
3,577,000 gained since "trough" of recession.

How Has Obama done on private-sector jobs?
4,052,000 gained since the "trough" of the recession.

25 months of private-sector job growth.
18 months of over all job growth.



http://mollysmiddleamerica.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-many-jobs-has-obama-created-lost.html


These are Bureau of Labor Statistics.


From the "trough" huh? That's certainly cherry picking your numbers. :rolleyes: So tell me what his policies were where "he created" jobs.

[SassyLady]

Ah crap. can't deal with the quotes being wrong.

I get what you're are saying. But the origin of the sexual meaning was around when they used it; so the jokes on them. It be like me going about talking about how gay I am. The finding out gay means homosexual and getting all pissed because of it.

Full disclosure, I don't like the fact they're recycling the phrase 'tea party'; which obviously and intentionally harkens to the Boston Tea Party, right? Then they use a term which carries with it sexual connotations...its just sweet irony IMHO. If they don't like it, then come up with a unique name for your movement...after all, thats why the tea bagging thing caught on IMO, its unique; whereas tea party, isn't.

OK....logroller. I am not voting for you anymore. :pillowfight:

I am one of the original grassroots members and I have never referred to myself as a teabagger and find it offensive. I like the reference to the Boston Tea Party because it had to do with throwing off oppressive taxation.

Now, if you want my vote you are really going to have to do some smooth talking.
:washmachine:

[fj1200]

Okay, your turn. Show us where it was shown in Bush's debt figures.

It's still your point to prove. Did the military work for free that year?

[logroller]

OK....logroller. I am not voting for you anymore. :pillowfight:

I am one of the original grassroots members and I have never referred to myself as a teabagger and find it offensive. I like the reference to the Boston Tea Party because it had to do with throwing off oppressive taxation.

Now, if you want my vote you are really going to have to do some smooth talking.
:washmachine:

Ah damn. Did I mention I, too, am a Whig-ger?

[SassyLady]

Ah damn. Did I mention I, too, am a Whig-ger?

Doesn't that make your head itch? :poke:

Keep talking .... haven't convinced me yet to not give my vote to Dragon.

[PostmodernProphet]

No they aren't. They were ignorant of the sexual connotation when they chose the term for themselves. They regretted the hell out of their choice when their opponents took advantage of every opportunity to call them by their chosen name, 'teabaggers'.

So, your point is that people who call the tea party 'teabaggers' are big meanies?

I agree they had no concept of the sexual connotation.......and I agree the left took advantage of that to deride them.....that being said I think you've answered your own question.....not "big meanies", but certainly people who have chosen to deride them for their terminology instead of dealing with their message..........and that is obviously because the left has no defense to the message......so we should call you ignorant, we should call you petty, we should call you short of solutions to America's problems.....we certainly shouldn't call you big.......

[Howard Roark]

Obama has created jobs.....

and I've been on a fantastic diet.....every morning I weigh a few lbs less than I did the night before......by my calculation, since 1984 I have lost over 20,000 lbs..........

That's what I don't understand about the tea party loyalists. The tparty ran on the promise of killing the govt.. They actually guaranteed higher unemployment via public sector decimation.

Now you cite unemployment numbers as if it's a bad thing?

Shouldn't you be happy? They've accomplished their goal.

Private sector has added more jobs than the public sector has lost, but it's pretty much a wash.

I know it's easy to ignore the fact that on inauguration day, we were losing almost 1 million jobs/month.


Now, we can speculate as to where we'd be today had we not pumped stimulus money into this economy, and we can further speculate where we'd be had all the states actually used the money for job creation.


At least admit that this country was teetering on the brink, and since day one the republicans have been wringing their hands with the hope that we fall off the cliff.

[tailfins]

Ah crap. can't deal with the quotes being wrong.

I get what you're are saying. But the origin of the sexual meaning was around when they used it; so the jokes on them. It be like me going about talking about how gay I am. The finding out gay means homosexual and getting all pissed because of it.

Full disclosure, I don't like the fact they're recycling the phrase 'tea party'; which obviously and intentionally harkens to the Boston Tea Party, right? Then they use a term which carries with it sexual connotations...its just sweet irony IMHO. If they don't like it, then come up with a unique name for your movement...after all, thats why the tea bagging thing caught on IMO, its unique; whereas tea party, isn't.

You know something, I'm tired of letting the enemy define the vocabulary. T.E.A. = Taxed Enough Already. It's a perfectly legitimate name. Furthermore, the origin of teabagger in this context is mailing a tea bag to your congressman. The first vulgar connotation I heard was when I think it was Edolphus Towns wanted to prosecute the constituent for harassment because HE considered it a sexual insult. I think the term teabagger should still be used as intended and constituents should still mail a tea bag to their congressmen when they waste taxpayer money.

[Missileman]

People like you, you mean? Aww, I'm just crushed over it.

Edit: a quick google and voila!

http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/199472/bush-s-2009-budget-leaves-out-cost-of-war


Plenty more where that came from, but you can use your own google. ;)

ROFL...read much? The proposed defense budget included $70 billion for the wars.


The White House said it will likely request more "once the specific needs" are better known.


HINT: You have to read past the article title. The devil is in the details, and the title of that article is an outright lie.

[Missileman]

I wouldn't know. I NEVER watch network TV. I live in the middle of nowhere. I get my news from newspapers and the internet.


Fox doesn't usually present both sides fairly. JMO.

If you aren't watching, how exactly did you arrive at your conclusion?

[libertine]

I agree they had no concept of the sexual connotation.......and I agree the left took advantage of that to deride them.....that being said I think you've answered your own question.....not "big meanies", but certainly people who have chosen to deride them for their terminology instead of dealing with their message..........and that is obviously because the left has no defense to the message......so we should call you ignorant, we should call you petty, we should call you short of solutions to America's problems.....we certainly shouldn't call you big.......

:laugh2:

Party of no.

Nuff said.

[libertine]

ROFL...read much? The proposed defense budget included $70 billion for the wars.



HINT: You have to read past the article title. The devil is in the details, and the title of that article is an outright lie.

Sez you.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/

[Shadow]

:laugh2:

Party of no.

Nuff said.

So...during the Bush administration...when the dems were the party of "no". Did you act like an asshat then too?

[Wind Song]

If you aren't watching, how exactly did you arrive at your conclusion?


I used to watch news when I lived in Oregon. That was ten years ago.

[Missileman]

Sez you.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/

This from the guy who removed the "doctor fix" from the healthcare bill so he could "claim" it cost less than a trillion?

BTW, this new link does nothing to alter the lie in the title of the first link.

[libertine]

So...during the Bush administration...when the dems were the party of "no". Did you act like an asshat then too?

They weren't the party of no. They spinelessly rolled over for everything Bush wanted lest be accused of being 'against us'.

[Missileman]

So...during the Bush administration...when the dems were the party of "no". Did you act like an asshat then too?

Once an asshat, always...

Just sayin. :laugh2:

[logroller]

You know something, I'm tired of letting the enemy define the vocabulary. T.E.A. = Taxed Enough Already. It's a perfectly legitimate name. Furthermore, the origin of teabagger in this context is mailing a tea bag to your congressman. The first vulgar connotation I heard was when I think it was Edolphus Towns wanted to prosecute the constituent for harassment because HE considered it a sexual insult. I think the term teabagger should still be used as intended and constituents should still mail a tea bag to their congressmen when they waste taxpayer money.
Now that's American; if you like it, own it. Reminds me of revolutionaries being called yanks and the ditty Yankee doodle dandy; which I believe was meant as an insult, but we owned it.

As for T.E.A. That's fine. I didnt say it was illegitimate, only unoriginal.

if A bunch of libs started a 'free and generous' party, that's legit too; I'd call em fags though.

.

[PostmodernProphet]

At least admit that this country was teetering on the brink, and since day one the republicans have been wringing their hands with the hope that we fall off the cliff.

not true....we'd have been perfectly happy if Obama had NOT fucked up the country and pushed us off the cliff.....in fact, I think that we all begged him not to do it......you egged him on, now you pretend we were the ones who wanted it to happen.......

[Mr. P]

They weren't the party of no. They spinelessly rolled over for everything Bush wanted lest be accused of being 'against us'.

Really? Not the party of NO? 195 NO votes and 9 AYE votes on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement bill? Yeah, that's rolling over alright. Obviously the Dems just want OLE people to die. Just sayin

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/108-2003/h332

[PostmodernProphet]

ROFL...read much? The proposed defense budget included $70 billion for the wars.

not to mention that the federal deficit in December, 2008 certainly included all the money spent for the war......

[Howard Roark]

They weren't the party of no. They spinelessly rolled over for everything Bush wanted lest be accused of being 'against us'.

I remember that. Anyone who spoke out against the Iraq debacle, or the surrendering of our rights via the Patriot Act, were labled 'unpatriotic'.

Now, Republicans openly admit they want this country to fail, and it's considered patriotic.

[PostmodernProphet]

:laugh2:

Party of no.

Nuff said.


more people should have said no, particularly in 2009 when Obama said, "hey, I think I'm going to spend a trillion dollars we don't have"......

[ConHog]

Threads like this crack me up.

Why are people STILL stupidly believing that Dem vs Rep = rich vs poor? That simply isn't the case. Look at King Obama and the way he lives. Do yall really think he cares about the poor except for getting their votes? LOL laughable.

[fj1200]

Sez you.

In his address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/) last night on the economic crisis, President Barack Obama made it official: No more budgetary sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon. As we have noted here before (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/gates.html), the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/

So you're second link puts the lie to your first statement?


Bush's debt was tallied leaving off the cost of two wars. Obama added it onto the books to present a realistic picture. Republicans, like Bush, like to pretend that number added by Obama was Obama-spending.

Unless you think that Supplementals, etc. are not added to the bottom line debt.


Appropriations

FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-5)
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-6)
FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-7)
FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-8)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

[fj1200]

Threads like this crack me up.

Why are people STILL stupidly believing that Dem vs Rep = rich vs poor? That simply isn't the case. Look at King Obama and the way he lives. Do yall really think he cares about the poor except for getting their votes? LOL laughable.

The whole thing is completely silly too. They're talking about $13MM per year in "cost" which is probably how much money they wasted talking about this.


On Derby Day, How Republicans Help Millionaire Horse Owners Pay Less In Taxes

In a tight race to keep his Senate seat in 2008, McConnell inserted the “Bluegrass Boondoggle” into the Farm Bill. The Boondoggle gave a special tax break to millionaire horse owners, costing the government $126 million over 10 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/05/478681/on-derby-day-how-republicans-help-millionaire-horse-owners-pay-less-in-taxes/

It might be one thing to say if this was the first time that horses became deductible as a business expense but apparently the only thing the "boondoggle" did was accelerate the depreciation.


McConnell in 2008 took credit for authoring the tax break, which allows accelerated, three-year depreciation for racehorses. At the time, he called it an issue of fairness given the limited racing life of many horses.
“The horse industry employs 50,000 Kentuckians and contributes $3.5 billion to our economy year-round. By adding this provision to the bill, we have ensured that this important part of our farm economy is treated fairly,” McConnell said then.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_148/mitch-mcconnell-horse-racing-tax-break-206938-1.html

[logroller]

^ well that explains the new market entrants to the dog food market.

[PostmodernProphet]

^ well that explains the new market entrants to the dog food market.

speaking of new entrants to the dog food market, did all our new liberals melt way when the sun shone?......

[Nukeman]

I remember that. Anyone who spoke out against the Iraq debacle, or the surrendering of our rights via the Patriot Act, were labled 'unpatriotic'.

Now, Republicans openly admit they want this country to fail, and it's considered patriotic.And here we are 6 years after a super majority of dims in the senate and a majority in the house. 3 years after election of a dim president and YOU still have the Patriot Act and a whole slew of NEW powers awarded those mouth breathers at the TSA, so tell me ohh enlightend one, why the pass on the current admin that not only accepted the previous admins restriction but loaded a whole new pile of them?
You guys really are predictable, you talk about how bad Bush was yet Obama does the same and WORSTE and you give him a pass!! If you had been around this board you would know that MOST of the conservatives on here bashed Bush as much as any lib would but all you see are "dumb hicks that don't know no nothun".

have yet to see any of the new crop of dims have a real thought about this other than the democratic talking points and acting like a buch of sheep.....

[Howard Roark]

And here we are 6 years after a super majority of dims in the senate and a majority in the house. 3 years after election of a dim president and YOU still have the Patriot Act and a whole slew of NEW powers awarded those mouth breathers at the TSA, so tell me ohh enlightend one, why the pass on the current admin that not only accepted the previous admins restriction but loaded a whole new pile of them?
You guys really are predictable, you talk about how bad Bush was yet Obama does the same and WORSTE and you give him a pass!! If you had been around this board you would know that MOST of the conservatives on here bashed Bush as much as any lib would but all you see are "dumb hicks that don't know no nothun".

have yet to see any of the new crop of dims have a real thought about this other than the democratic talking points and acting like a buch of sheep.....

Perhaps I haven't been here long enough...I bash Obama plenty. Especially when it comes to some of the things you mention. However, he got plenty of crap when the underwear bomber was almost successful, even though he flew out of a foreign airport.


I don't have a problem getting patted down at the airport. Our lives changed forever on 9/11

[Howard Roark]

Really? Not the party of NO? 195 NO votes and 9 AYE votes on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement bill? Yeah, that's rolling over alright. Obviously the Dems just want OLE people to die. Just sayin

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/108-2003/h332

Is that the unfunded Medicare D, that you're talking about?

See, the premise of this thread isn't who's better/worse. It's about those who campaign on a laundry list of spending/pork/small govt issues, but don't practice what they preach.

Why doesn't Medicare D concern you?

[Nukeman]

Perhaps I haven't been here long enough...I bash Obama plenty. Especially when it comes to some of the things you mention. However, he got plenty of crap when the underwear bomber was almost successful, even though he flew out of a foreign airport.


I don't have a problem getting patted down at the airport. Our lives changed forever on 9/11Ohh don't get me wrong I am all for airport security as long as its REAL security, and not the mickey mouse BS that we have, I mean really invasive pat downs of 90+ year old women and young children!?!?!? Despite the arguments profiling WORKS and should be used, in fact its used every day in law enforcement just not at the air port!!!

I have some great stories about the TSA from first hand accounts (my own and friends) that absolutely disgust me and the morons they have working for them.

[Howard Roark]

Ohh don't get me wrong I am all for airport security as long as its REAL security, and not the mickey mouse BS that we have, I mean really invasive pat downs of 90+ year old women and young children!?!?!? Despite the arguments profiling WORKS and should be used, in fact its used every day in law enforcement just not at the air port!!!

I have some great stories about the TSA from first hand accounts (my own and friends) that absolutely disgust me and the morons they have working for them.

Flying is a hassle. And it won't be getting better anytime soon. I guess if I'm the Pres., and I drastically alter the way TSA does their job, I'm gonna be hoping that nothing horrible happens.

My biggest complaint about Obama, is that he always takes the safe road. His number one agenda, is to get re-elected. That wasn't what we hired him to do. I'm not a liberal, but I can't see voting republican on a natl. level. I might go back to not voting, unless Obama does something to earn my vote between now and November.

[Trigg]

Flying is a hassle. And it won't be getting better anytime soon. I guess if I'm the Pres., and I drastically alter the way TSA does their job, I'm gonna be hoping that nothing horrible happens.

My biggest complaint about Obama, is that he always takes the safe road. His number one agenda, is to get re-elected. That wasn't what we hired him to do. I'm not a liberal, but I can't see voting republican on a natl. level. I might go back to not voting, unless Obama does something to earn my vote between now and November.


out of curiosity what is it about Romney that would keep you from voting for him come Nov.?


I lean republican, but vote occationally dem. on the local level.

I've followed dems. running for president, but the guys I liked never made it.

[Howard Roark]

out of curiosity what is it about Romney that would keep you from voting for him come Nov.?


I lean republican, but vote occationally dem. on the local level.

I've followed dems. running for president, but the guys I liked never made it.

Obama is a corporate whore. He's already made that glaringly obvious, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding.

Romney is a corporate whore on steroids.

Romney may promise jobs, but I don't believe he has ever followed through on that.

At some point, investment schemes that make tons of money for a select few, but negatively affect the majority of the country, have to be altered.

That might be the most important issue facing a President. There's no way Romney addresses that, because he doesn't see a problem with those schemes.


Obama wouldn't do it in his first term, because he had his eye on '12.

Once there's no campaign to worry about, perhaps he'll start doing his job.

Before Bush took us to Iraq, I never voted on the natl. level. I always viewed all the thieves as 'the same'. In '04, I felt it was my duty to get that dangerous moron out of office, so I voted. A lot of good it did.

I'm beginning to think I was right to avoid the game, and may not bother to waste my time this year.

Screw them all.

[Trigg]

Obama is a corporate whore. He's already made that glaringly obvious, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding.

Romney is a corporate whore on steroids.

Romney may promise jobs, but I don't believe he has ever followed through on that.

At some point, investment schemes that make tons of money for a select few, but negatively affect the majority of the country, have to be altered.

That might be the most important issue facing a President. There's no way Romney addresses that, because he doesn't see a problem with those schemes.


Obama wouldn't do it in his first term, because he had his eye on '12.

Once there's no campaign to worry about, perhaps he'll start doing his job.

Before Bush took us to Iraq, I never voted on the natl. level. I always viewed all the thieves as 'the same'. In '04, I felt it was my duty to get that dangerous moron out of office, so I voted. A lot of good it did.

I'm beginning to think I was right to avoid the game, and may not bother to waste my time this year.

Screw them all.

Romney does have his problems, but I liked him when he ran against McCain for one big reason and it's the same 4 years later.

I think he understands business.

This country is in desperite needs of getting out of debt, the gov. spends to much and doesn't care about cutting spending and looking towards the future of this country.

I hope Romney gets ahold of the purse strings and makes needed changes to the budget by cutting spending and making the gov. smaller.

I greatly disagreed with the stimulus Bush pushed and I hated it when Obama followed is lead with another stimulus, cash for clunkers and the big 3 bailout. I think if he's elected he will continue to do the same kinds of things.

Just my 2 cents

[Howard Roark]

Romney does have his problems, but I liked him when he ran against McCain for one big reason and it's the same 4 years later.

I think he understands business.

This country is in desperite needs of getting out of debt, the gov. spends to much and doesn't care about cutting spending and looking towards the future of this country.

I hope Romney gets ahold of the purse strings and makes needed changes to the budget by cutting spending and making the gov. smaller.

I greatly disagreed with the stimulus Bush pushed and I hated it when Obama followed is lead with another stimulus, cash for clunkers and the big 3 bailout. I think if he's elected he will continue to do the same kinds of things.

Just my 2 centsAll too often, the problem with govt. isn't the actual concept of the program, it's the implementation.

TARP ended up being little more than HUGE Xmas bonuses for those who crashed the economy. There were better ways to disperse the money, IMO, but that's water under the bridge.

Likewise for the Stimulus. Rather than throw money at states, there should've been oversight. Granted, we were losing app.1 million jobs/month on inauguration day, so desperation set in.


I have no faith that anything will get better, until we clean house in Congress.

That's not going to happen in our lifetime. Citizens United guraranteed status quo.

[Missileman]

Once there's no campaign to worry about, perhaps he'll start doing his job.


One thing we are certain he has planned if he gets a 2nd term is conspiring with the Russians to weaken our national security.

[Howard Roark]

One thing we are certain he has planned if he gets a 2nd term is conspiring with the Russians to weaken our national security.

Russians aren't the enemy anymore. Although, we made the same mistake they did in Afg., so we're blood brothers now.

[Missileman]

Russians aren't the enemy anymore. Although, we made the same mistake they did in Afg., so we're blood brothers now.

Dunno what rock you've been living under...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/world/europe/russian-general-threatens-pre-emptive-attacks-on-missile-defense-sites.html?_r=1

http://www.military.com/news/article/russia-threatens-to-attack-missile-defense-sites.html

[Howard Roark]

Dunno what rock you've been living under...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/world/europe/russian-general-threatens-pre-emptive-attacks-on-missile-defense-sites.html?_r=1

http://www.military.com/news/article/russia-threatens-to-attack-missile-defense-sites.html

Hmmm....first, you should read the Times piece. I mean the text, not the title.

Second, if Russia 'opposes Obama's plans', how can your previous post re. 'Obama conspiring w/Russia' be true?

[Missileman]

Hmmm....first, you should read the Times piece. I mean the text, not the title.

Second, if Russia 'opposes Obama's plans', how can your previous post re. 'Obama conspiring w/Russia' be true?

His plan is to cave in to Russia's demands as soon as he has the "flexibility" of not having to worry about running for re-election. Obama's been throwing up a smokescreen to appear tough on defense to bolster his shot at re-election.

Russia IS an enemy of the U.S., not necessarily an enemy of Obama.

[Howard Roark]

His plan is to cave in to Russia's demands as soon as he has the "flexibility" of not having to worry about running for re-election. Obama's been throwing up a smokescreen to appear tough on defense to bolster his shot at re-election.

Russia IS an enemy of the U.S., not necessarily an enemy of Obama.

Russia will do what's best for Russia. Same as we do. We're on opposite sides of most trade agreements. That doesn't make us enemies. They aren't going to attack us, and we aren't going to attack them.

They may thump their chest if we make bullshit claims about invading Iran, but Russia is yesterday's reason for a bloated military.

[Howard Roark]

And what are 'Russia's demands'?

[Missileman]

And what are 'Russia's demands'?

First and foremost, abandon all missile defense capabilities.

[Howard Roark]

First and foremost, abandon all missile defense capabilities.

Actually, I believe that Obama was going to share info about them, because Russia isn't the reason we need them there.

Is that why you feel we'll be 'less safe'?

[ConHog]

Obama is a corporate whore. He's already made that glaringly obvious, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding.

Romney is a corporate whore on steroids.

Romney may promise jobs, but I don't believe he has ever followed through on that.

At some point, investment schemes that make tons of money for a select few, but negatively affect the majority of the country, have to be altered.

That might be the most important issue facing a President. There's no way Romney addresses that, because he doesn't see a problem with those schemes.


Obama wouldn't do it in his first term, because he had his eye on '12.

Once there's no campaign to worry about, perhaps he'll start doing his job.

Before Bush took us to Iraq, I never voted on the natl. level. I always viewed all the thieves as 'the same'. In '04, I felt it was my duty to get that dangerous moron out of office, so I voted. A lot of good it did.

I'm beginning to think I was right to avoid the game, and may not bother to waste my time this year.

Screw them all.



No , go ahead and vote. Hell if you don't vote you have no right to complain and holy shit we all like to complain about the assholes. So vote so you can complain with us.

[Howard Roark]

No , go ahead and vote. Hell if you don't vote you have no right to complain and holy shit we all like to complain about the assholes. So vote so you can complain with us.

Yea well, for years my line was 'don't blame me....I didn't vote'.

[ConHog]

Yea well, for years my line was 'don't blame me....I didn't vote'.

I really believe that a person who doesn't vote has no complaint. AND I'd honestly see someone vote against what I vote for than not vote at all. I hate for anyone to feel like their vote wouldn't matter anyway.

I should add that there is a small caveat to that. I FIRMLY believe that we should have voter exams in this country.

[Missileman]

Actually, I believe that Obama was going to share info about them, because Russia isn't the reason we need them there.

Is that why you feel we'll be 'less safe'?

Our mounting debt is also a threat to national security and unless we reverse that trend immediately, we aren't going to be "safe" any time soon.

[Howard Roark]

Our mounting debt is also a threat to national security and unless we reverse that trend immediately, we aren't going to be "safe" any time soon.

Most of the world is in debt, or we'd really be screwed.

We need to cut the bloated defense budget, and raise revenue.

[Missileman]

Most of the world is in debt, or we'd really be screwed.

We need to cut the bloated defense budget, and raise revenue.

There's no doubt that you could pare some savings from the military budget. Along that same line, there are entire federal agencies whose budgets could be eliminated completely and then we start saving some "real" money. Half of the problem is the federal government is too large which makes it nearly impossible to effectively manage and nearly impossible to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.

[SassyLady]

Cut 50% of the grants that the NIH hands out every year. Realize billions of savings I'm sure.

[Howard Roark]

There's no doubt that you could pare some savings from the military budget. Along that same line, there are entire federal agencies whose budgets could be eliminated completely and then we start saving some "real" money. Half of the problem is the federal government is too large which makes it nearly impossible to effectively manage and nearly impossible to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.

I agree. I think we should push to reduce the pensions of those in Congress. They've got quite the golden parachute when they leave office. Especially when you consider the revolving door with lobbyists.

Given that everyone else's pensions are being cut, it would only be fair.

And about their healthcare...........

[libertine]

Out-going congress people should be prohibited from direct or indirect employment with any lobbying firms for five years minimum.

[Howard Roark]

Out-going congress people should be prohibited from direct or indirect employment with any lobbying firms for five years minimum.

Good luck with that.

[libertine]

Good luck with that.

Gotta start somewhere...

[Howard Roark]

Gotta start somewhere...

Well, yes. So, they don't 'register' as lobbyists. Or they just take those 'advisory' positions on the board of Big Pharma/Defense/Oil.

Better yet...the spouse gets that position on the board.

[Nukeman]

Out-going congress people should be prohibited from direct or indirect employment with any lobbying firms for five years minimum.NO for life! We are already supporting them for the rest of their lives they DO NOT need the lobby money. it should be illegal for any federal govt employee to act as a lobbiest!!!!

[PostmodernProphet]

First and foremost, abandon all missile defense capabilities.

brilliant!.....because if someone launches a missile at us, we certainly want to make sure it hits us, right?.......

[Howard Roark]

brilliant!.....because if someone launches a missile at us, we certainly want to make sure it hits us, right?.......

False premise. Russia doesn't expect us to abandon our missile defense systems.

[SassyLady]

False premise. Russia doesn't expect us to abandon our missile defense systems.
:link:

[Howard Roark]

:link:

You first. It's your claim that they did.

[logroller]

False premise. Russia doesn't expect us to abandon our missile defense systems.
Well no, just the defenses near them.

Moscow continues to hold out hope that things will not get that far. Russian defense experts will present their argument at the international conference, where they will demonstrate “the danger of the missile defense system in Europe as proposed by the US," Antonov said.


http://rt.com/politics/russia-us-missile-defense-arms-race-iran-406/

[SassyLady]

You first. It's your claim that they did.no I didn't. I was more interested in what you said so I asked for a link. But if you don't have one then I understand that it is just your opinion and not a fact. So, without facts to back your claim I can choose to support either of the premises stated on his subject.

I'm leaning toward Russia wanting us to abandon.

[Howard Roark]

Well no, just the defenses near them.

http://rt.com/politics/russia-us-missile-defense-arms-race-iran-406/

Exactly. That was in the llnk. That's a far cry from the claims made by Missile/Sassy.

[Howard Roark]

I'm leaning toward Russia wanting us to abandon.

Do you mind if I call you Ilene?:poke:

[Howard Roark]

Well no, just the defenses near them.

http://rt.com/politics/russia-us-missile-defense-arms-race-iran-406/

The system in Poland is aimed at curbing any attack by Iran.

I believe this is the system that Obama was willing to 'discuss' with Russia, w/respect to capability, codes, etc.

[SassyLady]

Do you mind if I call you Ilene?:poke:
Yes.

[SassyLady]

The New Start Treaty signed on Feb 5, 2010 is about cutting our strategic missle launchers by half.

[logroller]

Exactly. That was in the llnk. That's a far cry from the claims made by Missile/Sassy.
I'll not speculate on what mm and SL think, but it's reasonable to assume our strategic interest in missile defense is defined by where an attack might commence, and thus where we place the defense systems at the optimal location. I don't think we'd place them in eastern Europe by chance. Were we to abandon those locations, it's reasonable to assume it would weaken our ability to defend ourselves from missile attack. Though not abandoned in whole, the location of defense sites bears a direct impact on their efficacy, and thus, our national security.

[Howard Roark]

I'll not speculate on what mm and SL think, but it's reasonable to assume our strategic interest in missile defense is defined by where an attack might commence, and thus where we place the defense systems at the optimal location. I don't think we'd place them in eastern Europe by chance. Were we to abandon those locations, it's reasonable to assume it would weaken our ability to defend ourselves from missile attack. Though not abandoned in whole, the location of defense sites bears a direct impact on their efficacy, and thus, our national security.

One of the supplied links referenced the Poland site. We can only put these things where our allies allow us to put them. Even Russian experts say that the Poland site would do little or nothing to thwart a Russian attack....even though Russia isn't a threat.

Poland IS about 'where' the threats may be......Iran.

[Missileman]

One of the supplied links referenced the Poland site. We can only put these things where our allies allow us to put them. Even Russian experts say that the Poland site would do little or nothing to thwart a Russian attack....even though Russia isn't a threat.

Poland IS about 'where' the threats may be......Iran.

The Russians are bitching because they believe our eastern European sites might be able to thwart a Russian attack on the US.

[logroller]

One of the supplied links referenced the Poland site. We can only put these things where our allies allow us to put them. Even Russian experts say that the Poland site would do little or nothing to thwart a Russian attack....even though Russia isn't a threat.

Poland IS about 'where' the threats may be......Iran.

Of course were bound by geopolitical limitations. But I, nor you, are experts in strategic missile defense. Where they are placed are determined by those who do know. For all you or I know, Russia is still a threat. They have nukes, right? We also have missile defense systems onboard ships, but what if they fail to disable an airborne threat? We have redundancy for that reason. If you want to talk about the efficacy of our systems, and whether they increase our security; that's an entirely different argument than where and why they are placed in one place or another. I don't have all the answers here; but I think it's safe to assume Russia doesn't have the American national security at the top of its list of concerns and when our CIC is heard suggesting he will take a different route later, but can't for political election reasons...I can understand why his electorate may be concerned his interests and ours may be odds.

[Mr. P]

Of course were bound by geopolitical limitations. But I, nor you, are experts in strategic missile defense. Where they are placed are determined by those who do know. For all you or I know, Russia is still a threat. They have nukes, right? We also have missile defense systems onboard ships, but what if they fail to disable an airborne threat? We have redundancy for that reason. If you want to talk about the efficacy of our systems, and whether they increase our security; that's an entirely different argument than where and why they are placed in one place or another. I don't have all the answers here; but I think it's safe to assume Russia doesn't have the American national security at the top of its list of concerns and when our CIC is heard suggesting he will take a different route later, but can't for political election reasons...I can understand why his electorate may be concerned his interests and ours may be odds.

No, it's really not a different story IMO. Long flight paths are not straight lines. They are more of an arc because: 1. it's the shortest distance and 2. You must compensate for the earths rotation during the time in flight 3. the optimum altitude to intercept etc. So, effective launch sites could be located in areas one would scratch their head at without considering these factors. Just my 2cents.

[logroller]

No, it's really not a different story IMO. Long flight paths are not straight lines. They are more of an arc because: 1. it's the shortest distance and 2. You must compensate for the earths rotation during the time in flight 3. the optimum altitude to intercept etc. So, effective launch sites could be located in areas one would scratch their head at without considering these factors. Just my 2cents.
like I said, I'm no expert. The point I was trying to make was that the politics of missile defense is different than the efficacy of such systems' locations regarding threats. For example, were a missile launched from Iran, northwestward over Russia, and our eastern European defense shield intercepts and destroys that missile, perhaps over or near Russian airspace; the fallout from that is absolutely a Russian concern; not really an American one though. But he'll, I don't know. For all I know Iran doesn't have any nuke capability, right? And this is just a ruse to infuse American interests into Iranian policy. ...maybe that's like three cents, but what's a penny?

[ConHog]

NO for life! We are already supporting them for the rest of their lives they DO NOT need the lobby money. it should be illegal for any federal govt employee to act as a lobbiest!!!!

No!! Lobbies themselves should be illegal. PERIOD

[logroller]

No!! Lobbies themselves should be illegal. PERIOD
Not saying I disagree, but that would need to include political parties too. I just don't see how that's feasible.