Colin Powell uses inauguration to attack the GOP

[red states rule]

I do wish Powell would come out and admit he is a liberal Dem, It would come no surprise to anyone anyway






In an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos during ABC’s special inauguration day coverage this morning, former Secretary of State Colin Powell (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/colin-powell-says-idiot-presentations-are-killing-the-gop-18271692) lashed out at people in the Republican Party who spent the last four years spreading “birther nonsense” and other “things that demonize the president,” calling on GOP leaders to denounce such talk — publicly.

“Republicans have to stop buying into things that demonize the president. I mean, why aren’t Republican leaders shouting out about all this birther nonsense and all these other things? They should speak out. This is the kind of intolerance that I’ve been talking about where these idiot presentations continue to be made and you don’t see the senior leadership of the party say, ‘No, that’s wrong.’ In fact, sometimes by not speaking out, they’re encouraging it. And the base keeps buying the stuff.

“And it’s killing the base of the party. I mean, 26 percent favorability rating for the party right now. It ought to be telling them something. So, instead of attacking me or whoever speaks like I do, look in the mirror and realize, ‘How are we going to win the next election?”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/colin-powell-slams-idiot-presentations-by-some-republicans-urges-gop-leaders-to-speak-out-2/

[taft2012]

“Republicans have to stop buying into things that demonize the president. I mean, why aren’t Republican leaders shouting out about all this birther nonsense and all these other things"

... spoken as if Colin Powell did not give aid and comfort to, and was indeed a Founding Father of, the "Truther" movement.

[red states rule]

... spoken as if Colin Powell did not give aid and comfort to, and was indeed a Founding Father of, the "Truther" movement.

and he backed Obama twice since he considered McCain and Mitt to "extreme". Of course Powell will get glowing coverage by the liberal media as long as he continues to poke his finger in the eye of the R's

But watch the liberal meida turn on him the moment he disagrees with anything Obma says or does

[aboutime]

and he backed Obama twice since he considered McCain and Mitt to "extreme". Of course Powell will get glowing coverage by the liberal media as long as he continues to poke his finger in the eye of the R's

But watch the liberal meida turn on him the moment he disagrees with anything Obma says or does


red states rule. FIRST, and FOREMOST. We must not forget that Powell has the same status as the Vietnam War Hero Kerry.

Both have decided that their personal legacy is far more important than honesty, and dedication to the country they CLAIM to love.

It no longer matters what Powell did over the years. He has decided to Betray everyone who ever served with him, or under his command by choosing to place Racial preferences over Honorable Service. Service I...as a 30 year Veteran now Reject, and feel sad to have to admit. Honor among men these days seems as useless as what a Handshake used to mean between Honorable people.

It no longer applies. 4386 4387

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I once strongly backed Powell but no more. He is a lying turncoat and sold any honor he may have had to embrace his skin color. I suspect that he plans on running for the Presidency in the future and should he have opposed obama in any way that would have killed the possibility for any future chance at a successful run! So he sold out his principles and all those that supported him for decades in his career, that advanced him into such high positions. That is dishonor, to sell out like that. Naysayers will declare its not ,its just politics but they themselves have no honor so ff-them..!!--Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

I do wish Powell would come out and admit he is a liberal Dem, It would come no surprise to anyone anyway






In an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos during ABC’s special inauguration day coverage this morning, former Secretary of State Colin Powell (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/colin-powell-says-idiot-presentations-are-killing-the-gop-18271692) lashed out at people in the Republican Party who spent the last four years spreading “birther nonsense” and other “things that demonize the president,” calling on GOP leaders to denounce such talk — publicly.

“Republicans have to stop buying into things that demonize the president. I mean, why aren’t Republican leaders shouting out about all this birther nonsense and all these other things? They should speak out. This is the kind of intolerance that I’ve been talking about where these idiot presentations continue to be made and you don’t see the senior leadership of the party say, ‘No, that’s wrong.’ In fact, sometimes by not speaking out, they’re encouraging it. And the base keeps buying the stuff.

“And it’s killing the base of the party. I mean, 26 percent favorability rating for the party right now. It ought to be telling them something. So, instead of attacking me or whoever speaks like I do, look in the mirror and realize, ‘How are we going to win the next election?”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...o-speak-out-2/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/colin-powell-slams-idiot-presentations-by-some-republicans-urges-gop-leaders-to-speak-out-2/)



<!-- edit note -->
Last edited by red states rule; Today at 03:23 AM.

Where the hell was Colin Powell when all they did was demonize President GW Bush? The SOB did not stand up for him.

[ConHog]

I do wish Powell would come out and admit he is a liberal Dem, It would come no surprise to anyone anyway

Powell isn't a liberal democrat.

He's a racist who hitched his wagon to Obama for no other reason than he's black and now Powell is willing to do or say anything to remain in favor.

PERIOD

[logroller]

I do wish Powell would come out and admit he is a liberal Dem, It would come no surprise to anyone anyway
It's not his fault; he just got some bad intel.

[bingster]

and he backed Obama twice since he considered McCain and Mitt to "extreme". Of course Powell will get glowing coverage by the liberal media as long as he continues to poke his finger in the eye of the R's

But watch the liberal meida turn on him the moment he disagrees with anything Obma says or does

Of course, you guys aren't listening to what he says. The outrageous loons are on your side of the aisle and are almost never shouted down by your side. There's a new group out there claiming that Sandy Hook never happened and was made up by Obama to get your guns.

Even that "forcible rape" guy got an announced support and plenty of supporting ads from Romney during the presidential election. Your party's favorability rating is upside down. It's not because of your moderate and very responsible values of the past. It's because your party is seen as a haven for nut jobs who want to claim Obama is an Arab, non-citizen, Hitler-like, Stalin-like, black helicopter commander who wants to swoop down and take your guns.

Liberals have been there. Right now, though, your party is the black helicopter party. Reasonable Republicans, and I believe you have them, should speak out and bring back sanity. Yours is supposed to be the responsible party. Liberals are supposed to be the crazy nut job party.

[ConHog]

Of course, you guys aren't listening to what he says. The outrageous loons are on your side of the aisle and are almost never shouted down by your side. There's a new group out there claiming that Sandy Hook never happened and was made up by Obama to get your guns.

Even that "forcible rape" guy got an announced support and plenty of supporting ads from Romney during the presidential election. Your party's favorability rating is upside down. It's not because of your moderate and very responsible values of the past. It's because your party is seen as a haven for nut jobs who want to claim Obama is an Arab, non-citizen, Hitler-like, Stalin-like, black helicopter commander who wants to swoop down and take your guns.

Liberals have been there. Right now, though, your party is the black helicopter party. Reasonable Republicans, and I believe you have them, should speak out and bring back sanity. Yours is supposed to be the responsible party. Liberals are supposed to be the crazy nut job party.

That's a thing of the past now anyone who tries to be reasonable and offer solutions to anything that might offer some sort of middle ground is labeled and ridiculed and hopefully chased off.


but NONE of that changes the fact that Powell is a racist and only backed Obama cuz that was his niggah right there.

[bingster]

That's a thing of the past now anyone who tries to be reasonable and offer solutions to anything that might offer some sort of middle ground is labeled and ridiculed and hopefully chased off.


but NONE of that changes the fact that Powell is a racist and only backed Obama cuz that was his niggah right there.

I don't understand you ConHog. I've usually supported your posts. Powell has always been a moderate Republican. He's said that his testimony on TV justifying our cause to attack Iraq is his most regretted service to our country. If you look at how far to the right the Republicans have moved, and how extreme their platform and rhetoric has become, I don't think it's a shock that Powell is with Obama. I think it's a shock that so many other elected moderate Republicans of the past have renounced their former principles to adopt their current extremism.

[ConHog]

I don't understand you ConHog. I've usually supported your posts. Powell has always been a moderate Republican. He's said that his testimony on TV justifying our cause to attack Iraq is his most regretted service to our country. If you look at how far to the right the Republicans have moved, and how extreme their platform and rhetoric has become, I don't think it's a shock that Powell is with Obama. I think it's a shock that so many other elected moderate Republicans of the past have renounced their former principles to adopt their current extremism.

I don't think it's shock to anyone that a black man sided with a black man either.

you're right Powell was a moderate Republican, and he traded that to support a left leaning Democrat. They shared nothing in common , save one.

By they by, I know posting on a message board can quickly make one think otherwise, but it's acceptable to not agree with every thing a person thinks and not consider that person an "enemy" so no biggie to me that you choose to disagree with me here. You have every right to be wrong. :laugh:

[bingster]

I once strongly backed Powell but no more. He is a lying turncoat and sold any honor he may have had to embrace his skin color. I suspect that he plans on running for the Presidency in the future and should he have opposed obama in any way that would have killed the possibility for any future chance at a successful run! So he sold out his principles and all those that supported him for decades in his career, that advanced him into such high positions. That is dishonor, to sell out like that. Naysayers will declare its not ,its just politics but they themselves have no honor so ff-them..!!--Tyr

You wouldn't know honor if it jumped up and slapped that stupid grin off your doggy face!! Your party is self-destructing and Powell is mourning the downfall. He, like me even, would like Republicans to regain the honor they had in the past. You huge amount of ugly rhetoric that spews out of your party's pie holes is disgusting. What was that guy Sinunu (sp?), the senior talking piece of the Romney campaign calling Obama lazy and stupid, WE don't talk like that. You say what you want on this forum, but your party is the one screaming the ugly talk on the TV. I was raised a liberal nut job and I miss my position in life. Your nuts have taken over the platform of extremism. Yours is no longer the responsible party.

[bingster]

I don't think it's shock to anyone that a black man sided with a black man either.

you're right Powell was a moderate Republican, and he traded that to support a left leaning Democrat. They shared nothing in common , save one.

By they by, I know posting on a message board can quickly make one think otherwise, but it's acceptable to not agree with every thing a person thinks and not consider that person an "enemy" so no biggie to me that you choose to disagree with me here. You have every right to be wrong. :laugh:

That's cool Conhog, just trying to understand everyone.

[ConHog]

You wouldn't know honor if it jumped up and slapped that stupid grin off your doggy face!! Your party is self-destructing and Powell is mourning the downfall. He, like me even, would like Republicans to regain the honor they had in the past. You huge amount of ugly rhetoric that spews out of your party's pie holes is disgusting. What was that guy Sinunu (sp?), the senior talking piece of the Romney campaign calling Obama lazy and stupid, WE don't talk like that. You say what you want on this forum, but your party is the one screaming the ugly talk on the TV. I was raised a liberal nut job and I miss my position in life. Your nuts have taken over the platform of extremism. Yours is no longer the responsible party.

The nuts always deny that it is they who are the nuts. So youre wasting your time there friend

[bingster]

I don't think it's shock to anyone that a black man sided with a black man either.

you're right Powell was a moderate Republican, and he traded that to support a left leaning Democrat. They shared nothing in common , save one.

By they by, I know posting on a message board can quickly make one think otherwise, but it's acceptable to not agree with every thing a person thinks and not consider that person an "enemy" so no biggie to me that you choose to disagree with me here. You have every right to be wrong. :laugh:

I disagree with the left-leaning democrat Obama description, though. You name one thing he's done that I can't come up with a Republican who adopted the same position in the last 6 years. He's adopted virtually every Bush foreign policy (except name calling and torture), his economic policy is way more responsible than Bush, and all of his domestic policy has been dead center.

[ConHog]

I disagree with the left-leaning democrat Obama description, though. You name one thing he's done that I can't come up with a Republican who adopted the same position in the last 6 years. He's adopted virtually every Bush foreign policy (except name calling and torture), his economic policy is way more responsible than Bush, and all of his domestic policy has been dead center.

Lol bush was no conservative either. Hell clinton was more conservative than bush in a lot of ways.


Oh and its cute that you think the cia no longer tortures. Naive but cute

[bingster]

I disagree with the left-leaning democrat Obama description, though. You name one thing he's done that I can't come up with a Republican who adopted the same position in the last 6 years. He's adopted virtually every Bush foreign policy (except name calling and torture), his economic policy is way more responsible than Bush, and all of his domestic policy has been dead center.

Actually, I think you might have me on stimulus. I'm not sure when the last Republican put out a stimulus package was, but I'm sure it wasn't Bush.

[bingster]

Lol bush was no conservative either. Hell clinton was more conservative than bush in a lot of ways.


Oh and its cute that you think the cia no longer tortures. Naive but cute

Actually, I'm with you on that. We are supposed to follow the new army manual on interogative processes that was updated in 2006, but stress positions, temperature extremes, sleep depravity, and a couple other things the world thinks is torture was written into it.

Also, we still have that rendition thing going on, who knows what we do overseas.

[bingster]

Powell isn't a liberal democrat.

He's a racist who hitched his wagon to Obama for no other reason than he's black and now Powell is willing to do or say anything to remain in favor.

PERIOD

I don't know, man. I think your position that Powell is a racist because he supported Obama is like saying all white people are racists for supporting Romney. I think it's a little thin without supporting justification.

[ConHog]

I don't know, man. I think your position that Powell is a racist because he supported Obama is like saying all white people are racists for supporting Romney. I think it's a little thin without supporting justification.

I disagree. I thino its more like saying a few disagree with obama solely bc hes black. I happen to suspect that a few of the fake conservatives on this board fit that to a t.

Not everyone who is against obama but some for sure. Its easy to spot them. They are old, cranky, angry, and pretend to believe in freedom but really only care about their freedoms.

[Robert A Whit]

Of course, you guys aren't listening to what he says. The outrageous loons are on your side of the aisle and are almost never shouted down by your side. There's a new group out there claiming that Sandy Hook never happened and was made up by Obama to get your guns.

Even that "forcible rape" guy got an announced support and plenty of supporting ads from Romney during the presidential election. Your party's favorability rating is upside down. It's not because of your moderate and very responsible values of the past. It's because your party is seen as a haven for nut jobs who want to claim Obama is an Arab, non-citizen, Hitler-like, Stalin-like, black helicopter commander who wants to swoop down and take your guns.

Liberals have been there. Right now, though, your party is the black helicopter party. Reasonable Republicans, and I believe you have them, should speak out and bring back sanity. Yours is supposed to be the responsible party. Liberals are supposed to be the crazy nut job party.

This is about Colin Powell who did not stand up for GW Bush when he was viciously attacked by your favorite types. Yet he stands tall in the saddle for Obama.

Then he wags his finger at us as if we are the problem.

What a chump. So soon we forget how sad and disoriented they were when Bush won after their great GOD Clinton left office.

[logroller]

Actually, I think you might have me on stimulus. I'm not sure when the last Republican put out a stimulus package was, but I'm sure it wasn't Bush.
Technically, Congress does it. EGTRRA of 2001 (ie Bush Tax cuts) was an economic stimulus. Then there's this--

Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613, enacted February 13, 2008) was an Act of Congress providing for several kinds of economic stimuli intended to boost the United States economy in 2008 and to avert a recession, or ameliorate economic conditions. The stimulus package was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 29, 2008, and in a slightly different version by the U.S. Senate on February 7, 2008. The Senate version was then approved in the House the same day.It was signed into law on February 13, 2008 by President Bush with the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. The law provides for tax rebates to low- and middle-income U.S. taxpayers, tax incentives to stimulate business investment, and an increase in the limits imposed on mortgages eligible for purchase by government-sponsored enterprises (e.g., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The total cost of this bill was projected at $152 billion for 2008. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

[Robert A Whit]

Actually, I think you might have me on stimulus. I'm not sure when the last Republican put out a stimulus package was, but I'm sure it wasn't Bush.

What?

Bush provided stimulus in his tax cuts. And he cut taxes for everybody.

In 2008, he also stimulated the economy. And he, not Obama saved the auto industry and saved the financial markets.

Of course Obama hogs the credit for his follow up stimulis.

Bush was not extreme. In social matters I would say he leaned left. As to fiscal matters, his policies were to improve the economy.

Bush also was trained in Economics.

Obama of course was trained to be a community organizer followed by law courses that enabled him to get some credit as a low ranking law teacher.

Powell claims he got it wrong butr he did his own research.

Bush depended on scores of people for his intelligence that lead to invading Iraq.

For instance, the media never told you that Bush relied on the King of Jordan for intelligence. Nor did they mention that then President Mubarak was a major source of intelligence.

Jordan went so far as to give our special forces a jumping off spot to invade Iraq.

[logroller]

What?

Bush provided stimulus in his tax cuts. And he cut taxes for everybody.

In 2008, he also stimulated the economy. And he, not Obama saved the auto industry and saved the financial markets.

Of course Obama hogs the credit for his follow up stimulis.

Bush was not extreme. In social matters I would say he leaned left. As to fiscal matters, his policies were to improve the economy.

Bush also was trained in Economics.

Obama of course was trained to be a community organizer followed by law courses that enabled him to get some credit as a low ranking law teacher.

Powell claims he got it wrong butr he did his own research.

Bush depended on scores of people for his intelligence that lead to invading Iraq.

For instance, the media never told you that Bush relied on the King of Jordan for intelligence. Nor did they mention that then President Mubarak was a major source of intelligence.

Jordan went so far as to give our special forces a jumping off spot to invade Iraq.
Intelligence or information? GW Bush depended on getting whatever he could that supported his plan on invading Iraq;when you begin with a solution in mind, mustering a problem comes in short order.

[bingster]

This is about Colin Powell who did not stand up for GW Bush when he was viciously attacked by your favorite types. Yet he stands tall in the saddle for Obama.

Then he wags his finger at us as if we are the problem.

What a chump. So soon we forget how sad and disoriented they were when Bush won after their great GOD Clinton left office.

I'm not sure about what you mean when you say that he "did not stand up for GW Bush" but if you mean regarding Iraq, he didn't stand up for himself. As I said, Powell wasn't proud of the part he played in this misguided endeavor. He was against Bush's mission against Iraq since Bush's first NSA meeting on Iraq in the first month of Bush's administration. When every other intelligence type was correctly focused on Al Qaeda, Bush was conspiring against Iraq. The guy had a fetish. Powell is way too honorable to embrace such a craven and misguided view. Historically, Bush's position was positively asinine. Powell is and was an honorable man and isn't and wasn't willing to sacrafice his military disciplined code of honor for the sake of Bush's ignorant cowboy bravado. He did enough damage with his pitiful news conference in which he pointed to irrevalent crumbs of "evidence" to coerce the American public to sacrafice 4000 American soldiers to an unworthy cause.

[bingster]

What?

Bush provided stimulus in his tax cuts. And he cut taxes for everybody.

In 2008, he also stimulated the economy. And he, not Obama saved the auto industry and saved the financial markets.

Of course Obama hogs the credit for his follow up stimulis.

Bush was not extreme. In social matters I would say he leaned left. As to fiscal matters, his policies were to improve the economy.

Bush also was trained in Economics.

Obama of course was trained to be a community organizer followed by law courses that enabled him to get some credit as a low ranking law teacher.

Bush depended on scores of people for his intelligence that lead to invading Iraq.

For instance, the media never told you that Bush relied on the King of Jordan for intelligence. Nor did they mention that then President Mubarak was a major source of intelligence.

Jordan went so far as to give our special forces a jumping off spot to invade Iraq.

Powell claims he got it wrong butr he did his own research.

Good point about stimulus. I forgot that most economists do think that tax cuts are the most inefficient form of stimulus-but it's still stimulus. Can't brag about his economy, though. Bush experienced the slowest growing economy in at least the last 20 years (that number was off of the top of my head, I know his economy was worse than Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan).

He did Tarp (which most Fox viewers blame on Obama), started the auto bail-out-Obama cut the final check, but the main stimulus was Obama's and we would have experienced our second Depression without it.

Obama doesn't "hog" the credit for his stimulus. He blocks tomatoes thrown by conservatives for doing it.

Are you blaming the media for not telling me that Bush was advised by muslams? This forum has made itself quite clear that Islam is bad-didn't you get the memo? What does the Jordan, Egypt, thing mean to you? Good intelligence or bad? We were happy Mubarack got overthrown, I think.

Scores of people advised him? Good or bad that he had no thoughts in his own head...I don't know what that's supposed to mean. And, please don't compare Bush's education to Obama's. It's better to go into the bathroom and barf in private than do so in public.

Again, Bush was planning to attack Iraq before he was even elected. I've read four different books by four different people who were in the room during his first NSA meeting and he blew off talk about Al Qaeda and insisted on focusing on Iraq.

[bingster]

Technically, Congress does it. EGTRRA of 2001 (ie Bush Tax cuts) was an economic stimulus. Then there's this--
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

I agree, but aren't you splitting hairs? Nixon has been credited for the clean water act even though it was passed over his veto. I forgot Bush Tax cuts were stimulus. When I wrote that post I was thinking demand-side, vs. supply side economics. I also made the mistake of keeping in mind reading I did on tea party websites that proclaimed "stimulus packages" against their ideology. Guess they didn't consider tax cuts stimulus either.

[red states rule]

Powell isn't a liberal democrat.

He's a racist who hitched his wagon to Obama for no other reason than he's black and now Powell is willing to do or say anything to remain in favor.

PERIOD

He is no different then you are as you proved your are a racist by your use of the "N" word

[red states rule]

I don't understand you ConHog. I've usually supported your posts. Powell has always been a moderate Republican. He's said that his testimony on TV justifying our cause to attack Iraq is his most regretted service to our country. If you look at how far to the right the Republicans have moved, and how extreme their platform and rhetoric has become, I don't think it's a shock that Powell is with Obama. I think it's a shock that so many other elected moderate Republicans of the past have renounced their former principles to adopt their current extremism.

Bing it comes as no surprise you support Conman posts as he is just as liberal as you are

However I do have a question for oyu. Libs like you always use the term "extreme" when talking about conservatives, PLease tell me what is extreme about

1) Wanting to the trillion dollar plus annual deficits Obama is running up

2) Wanting to make real CUTS in a budget loaded with pork and BS "green" energy projects

3) Allowing people to keep more of the moeny they earn and stop punishing acievement and success in America

4) Wanting to reform and modify entitlement programs that are bankrupting the country and cannot be sustained

5) Wanting to repeal Obamacare that is driving up the cost of health care, causing workers to have their work hours reduced, and preventing companies from growing and hiring new workers. Not to emntion the budget busting cost of the program

I will stop here (I have many other questions) but these hardly seem to be "extreme" Bing if you care what Obama's economic policies are doing to the middle class folks libs claim to care so much about

[logroller]

I agree, but aren't you splitting hairs? Nixon has been credited for the clean water act even though it was passed over his veto. I forgot Bush Tax cuts were stimulus. When I wrote that post I was thinking demand-side, vs. supply side economics. I also made the mistake of keeping in mind reading I did on tea party websites that proclaimed "stimulus packages" against their ideology. Guess they didn't consider tax cuts stimulus either.
really? Nixon is remembered for the clean water act...other items come to mind.
I'm just tired of people saying bush did this, Obama did that, when Congress makes the law. The populus takes misinformation and runs with it. Obamacare is the patient protection and affordable care act of 2010, for example. Bush tax cuts: economic growth and tax reduction and reconciliation act of 2001 is another. I realize its easier to make up a clever name, 111thCongresscare doesnt quite have the same ring to it, but its just laziness, and laziness leads to ignorance. Laziness leads to more bad laws. repeat. You want to change those laws; tell Congress, tell your constituents, but speak the plainly, not in witticisms and broad generalities riddled with inconsistencies. We're tearing the fabric of our nation to threads; all the while yelling at the other side to quit pulling.

[red states rule]

really? Nixon is remembered for the clean water act...other items come to mind.
I'm just tired of people saying bush did this, Obama did that, when Congress makes the law. The populus takes misinformation and runs with it. Obamacare is the patient protection and affordable care act of 2010, for example. Bush tax cuts: economic growth and tax reduction and reconciliation act of 2001 is another. I realize its easier to make up a clever name, 111thCongresscare doesnt quite have the same ring to it, but its just laziness, and laziness leads to ignorance. Laziness leads to more bad laws. repeat. You want to change those laws; tell Congress, tell your constituents, but speak the plainly, not in witticisms and broad generalities riddled with inconsistencies. We're tearing the fabric of our nation to threads; all the while yelling at the other side to quit pulling.

Speaking of laziness look at how Obama has increased welfare payments to over one trillion dollars per year and paying people not to work for 99 weeks

Libs have convinced a growing segment of America they are entitled to other peoples money and do not have to EARN what they want in life LR

That will be the legacy of Obama and is now the #1 policy drives of the Dem party

[logroller]

Speaking of laziness look at how Obama has increased welfare payments to over one trillion dollars per year and paying people not to work for 99 weeks

Libs have convinced a growing segment of America they are entitled to other peoples money and do not have to EARN what they want in life LR

That will be the legacy of Obama and is now the #1 policy drives of the Dem party
How did he do that?

[red states rule]

How did he do that?


Are you saying that fact is not correct LR?

A day seldom goes by without some lib in DC whining how the "poor" in this country need MORE handouts and how people like me need to finance it

[logroller]

Are you saying that fact is not correct LR?A day seldom goes by without some lib in DC whining how the "poor" in this country need MORE handouts and how people like me need to finance it
do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you too lazy to explain how he did that?

[red states rule]

do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you too lazy to explain how he did that?

Getting testy already this morning LR?

OK there are several ways Dems have added to the handout rolls

First since Dems have not done their most job function and passed a budget in over 4 years, they slip in pork bills like expnding unemployment handouts into other bills

They can also add food stamp expansion admendments the same way

Since Dems have no idea what they are spending taxpayer money on how )with no budget to follow) the hell can they "promise" to cut spending?

[logroller]

Getting testy already this morning LR?

OK there are several ways Dems have added to the handout rolls

First since Dems have not done their most job function and passed a budget in over 4 years, they slip in pork bills like expnding unemployment handouts into other bills

They can also add food stamp expansion admendments the same way

Since Dems have no idea what they are spending taxpayer money on how )with no budget to follow) the hell can they "promise" to cut spending?
You said Obama did it; I asked how he did it... You asked if I disputed the fact he did...uou explain its the dems--the dems did it, not Congress, just the dems..with no budgets and pork. That's how Obama increased welfare spending. Crafty one that Obama.

[red states rule]

You said Obama did it; I asked how he did it... You asked if I disputed the fact he did...uou explain its the dems--the dems did it, not Congress, just the dems..with no budgets and pork. That's how Obama increased welfare spending. Crafty one that Obama.

I alwats thought the President had to sign anything Congress passed before it became law. Your lame attmept to defend Obama's expanding welfare state is sad to see

I guyess like Harry Reid, you do not want Obama's fingerprint om any spending bill and that includes a budget

So you go ahead and try to ignore the trillion buck a year going for welfare - the takers are lapping it up LR

[logroller]

I alwats thought the President had to sign anything Congress passed before it became law. Your lame attmept to defend Obama's expanding welfare state is sad to see

I guyess like Harry Reid, you do not want Obama's fingerprint om any spending bill and that includes a budget

So you go ahead and try to ignore the trillion buck a year going for welfare - the takers are lapping it up LR
congress writes the laws. the pres cannot add and subtract at his leisure. He could veto the laws...but then congress gets all pissy. He does execute those laws, and there is some discretion in that arena.
Check out the rule changes to 1996 welfare act. Might give you a little insight into how Obama actually has increased welfare spending...by allowing the States to develop their own TANF qualification programs for example. The devil is in the details rsr; broad generalizations mischaracterize the problem.

[taft2012]

What was that guy Sinunu (sp?), the senior talking piece of the Romney campaign calling Obama lazy and stupid, WE don't talk like that.

Really?

How old are you? You clearly were not at the age of awareness during the presidency of GW Bush, when Democrats were lining up to say that and much worse, including "liar, warmonger, and mass murderer".

And if you were over 15 you would also know Sununu as a former New Hampshire governor, member of President GHW Bush's cabinet, and finally a CNN conservative analyst for many years.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You said Obama did it; I asked how he did it... You asked if I disputed the fact he did...uou explain its the dems--the dems did it, not Congress, just the dems..with no budgets and pork. That's how Obama increased welfare spending. Crafty one that Obama.

Log, are you disputing that Obama and the dem controlled Congress during obama's first term had the combined power to do exactly that?-Tyr

[red states rule]

congress writes the laws. the pres cannot add and subtract at his leisure. He could veto the laws...but then congress gets all pissy. He does execute those laws, and there is some discretion in that arena.
Check out the rule changes to 1996 welfare act. Might give you a little insight into how Obama actually has increased welfare spending...by allowing the States to develop their own TANF qualification programs for example. The devil is in the details rsr; broad generalizations mischaracterize the problem.

So now all the "standards" Dems and the liberal media held Bush to with regards to spending, debt, and deficits are out the window since Obama is now in the oval office. I should have expected this since the same people did the same thing in regards to gas prices doubling under Obama and NOW they bellow how Obama has no control over gas prices. Congrats LR you have proven me right again when I say without double standards liberals would have no standards at all

[ConHog]

He is no different then you are as you proved your are a racist by your use of the "N" word

more liberal hoo hah calling people who disagree with them racists. You liberals are a sad bunch.

[red states rule]

more liberal hoo hah calling people who disagree with them racists. You liberals are a sad bunch.
If you use the "N" word in common conservation you are a racist in my book Conman. So you are the one who has to live with your bigotry and shallowness

[ConHog]

If you use the "N" word in common conservation you are a racist in my book Conman. So you are the one who has to live with your bigotry and shallowness

I do not use it in common conversation lib. I use it in certain situations. And if you really think that calling it the N word rather than just saying NIGGER differentiates anyone well that's on you.

Neither one makes someone a racist. I would accept that if I actually called someone a nigger that would be a racist comment, but of course I've never done that.

[red states rule]

I do not use it in common conversation lib. I use it in certain situations. And if you really think that calling it the N word rather than just saying NIGGER differentiates anyone well that's on you.

Neither one makes someone a racist. I would accept that if I actually called someone a nigger that would be a racist comment, but of course I've never done that.

You are a racist. Maybe your values are so low you do not consider it disgusting - that is simply another example of what a low life you really are

[ConHog]

You are a racist. Maybe your values are so low you do not consider it disgusting - that is simply another example of what a low life you really are

My bad, for a moment I had forgotten who I was conversing with and thought we were going to have an actual discussion about using the word nigger.

Thank you for confirming that you are in fact the liberal known as RSR who will brook no disagreement , nor take part in any actual conversation.

I'll leave you to it then.

[red states rule]

My bad, for a moment I had forgotten who I was conversing with and thought we were going to have an actual discussion about using the word nigger.

Thank you for confirming that you are in fact the liberal known as RSR who will brook no disagreement , nor take part in any actual conversation.

I'll leave you to it then.

My what a role model you are ConMan

[bingster]

Really?

How old are you? You clearly were not at the age of awareness during the presidency of GW Bush, when Democrats were lining up to say that and much worse, including "liar, warmonger, and mass murderer".

And if you were over 15 you would also know Sununu as a former New Hampshire governor, member of President GHW Bush's cabinet, and finally a CNN conservative analyst for many years.

Well, that was true about Bush. You want to argue about Bush?

[bingster]

Bing it comes as no surprise you support Conman posts as he is just as liberal as you are

However I do have a question for oyu. Libs like you always use the term "extreme" when talking about conservatives, PLease tell me what is extreme about

1) Wanting to the trillion dollar plus annual deficits Obama is running up

2) Wanting to make real CUTS in a budget loaded with pork and BS "green" energy projects

3) Allowing people to keep more of the moeny they earn and stop punishing acievement and success in America

4) Wanting to reform and modify entitlement programs that are bankrupting the country and cannot be sustained

5) Wanting to repeal Obamacare that is driving up the cost of health care, causing workers to have their work hours reduced, and preventing companies from growing and hiring new workers. Not to emntion the budget busting cost of the program

I will stop here (I have many other questions) but these hardly seem to be "extreme" Bing if you care what Obama's economic policies are doing to the middle class folks libs claim to care so much about


Some of it is rhetoric, unwillingness to compromise, and most of all, today's Republicans acting like everything Obama wants is extreme when the same Republicans supported the same position in the past.

Threatening not to raise the debt ceiling is extreme. Yes, everyone likes to point out that Obama voted against the debt ceiling before but his vote was never a threat to raise the ceiling. Rhetoric against the debt ceiling isn't new either, but it always comes from the minority that has no chance of stopping it. There's a big difference between symbolic votes and actually threatening the faith and credit of our country.

Republicans wanting all of the spending cuts to come out of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (and actually wanting to raise spending on the military) is also extreme. We just went through an election in which both sides got points for accusing the other guy of cutting Medicare. They were smart, polls say over 67% of the country want no cuts to the big three. Ten minutes after the election results are in and the Republicans forget the debate and start screaming for cuts! There is room for reform in the big three, but it can't been done overnight and holding the country hostage isn't the answer.

Until yesterday, practically, their answer to the debt was more tax cuts. Like Clinton said, "It's arithmetic", you can't give yourself a raise by taking a pay cut.

Another hot topic is gun control. This isn't the thread for that, but I've seen polls that say 95% of the country wants background checks. I've never seen a higher poll and the Republicans are either quiet or against-mostly.

The last thing I'll say is extreme is that Republicans don't hold a single position that is popular with the country. Obamacare is the only thing that is even close, and the polls on that are changing in favor of it. It's one thing to have a minority opinion on something, but not on everything.

[jimnyc]

I don't understand you ConHog. I've usually supported your posts. Powell has always been a moderate Republican.

In name only. Otherwise, cite things he has been involved in or succeeded at in his career that would show him being a Republican, or conservative? "RINO"

[bingster]

Some of it is rhetoric, unwillingness to compromise, and most of all, today's Republicans acting like everything Obama wants is extreme when the same Republicans supported the same position in the past.

Threatening not to raise the debt ceiling is extreme. Yes, everyone likes to point out that Obama voted against the debt ceiling before but his vote was never a threat to raise the ceiling. Rhetoric against the debt ceiling isn't new either, but it always comes from the minority that has no chance of stopping it. There's a big difference between symbolic votes and actually threatening the faith and credit of our country.

Republicans wanting all of the spending cuts to come out of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (and actually wanting to raise spending on the military) is also extreme. We just went through an election in which both sides got points for accusing the other guy of cutting Medicare. They were smart, polls say over 67% of the country want no cuts to the big three. Ten minutes after the election results are in and the Republicans forget the debate and start screaming for cuts! There is room for reform in the big three, but it can't been done overnight and holding the country hostage isn't the answer.

Until yesterday, practically, their answer to the debt was more tax cuts. Like Clinton said, "It's arithmetic", you can't give yourself a raise by taking a pay cut.

Another hot topic is gun control. This isn't the thread for that, but I've seen polls that say 95% of the country wants background checks. I've never seen a higher poll and the Republicans are either quiet or against-mostly.

The last thing I'll say is extreme is that Republicans don't hold a single position that is popular with the country. Obamacare is the only thing that is even close, and the polls on that are changing in favor of it. It's one thing to have a minority opinion on something, but not on everything.


On my last point, I can't help but point out that Republican's behavior during the campaign was extreme. When you can't win with your ideas, it isn't cool to change the rules. The changes to the voting laws was not about voter fraud. Republican state officials spoke out and blatantly declared what they were doing. They were trying to rig the election to keep Democrats from voting. There were many examples of this including billboards in minority communities to scare people regarding voter fraud, changing early voting especially the last Sunday that blacks are known to traditionally vote on, and the ID laws. If you can't prove the crime, you shouldn't make the law-talk about big government.

I don't know how often I read posts accusing Obama of lying but the Romney campaign practically broke the record. Obama did not take the work requirement out of the welfare laws. Jeep is not shipping American jobs to China. "You didn't build that" although, I admit, was irresistable, was way out of context. Romney even posted a video of Obama in an ad in which Obama was quoting McCain saying "We don't even have to talk about the economy". Obama was quoting McCain, he said "McCain said '....." and Romney took out the "McCain said" part! You can't get any worse than that!

Now, the governors of the swing states are talking about re-districting again like they did to keep the House AND changing their laws from a winner take all to a winner takes the districts they win only. If they would have made this change before the election, Obama would have won the popular vote by 5 million and Romney would have won the election!

You shouldn't win an election against the will of the people. That is a truth that the Republicans better not deny.

[jimnyc]

I thought Colin was a "conservative" when he was still active in military decisions and such. I still think he was awesome as a military leader. But as he made the transition from military to politics, I think he also slowly moved towards the center, or even to the left a tad. I don't think he's a bad man, not at all, I just don't see him as a republican.

[bingster]

In name only. Otherwise, cite things he has been involved in or succeeded at in his career that would show him being a Republican, or conservative? "RINO"

Well, since he's never held political (not counting state) office that's a tall order. I read his book, though, and I know he believes in small government and low taxes. He used to be against gay rights, although I think he evolved.

[jimnyc]

Well, since he's never held political (not counting state) office that's a tall order. I read his book, though, and I know he believes in small government and low taxes. He used to be against gay rights, although I think he evolved.

I meant as in working under a republican. Just because he worked under Bush, that doesn't make him a Republican or a big supporter of all of Bush's actions.

[red states rule]

Some of it is rhetoric, unwillingness to compromise, and most of all, today's Republicans acting like everything Obama wants is extreme when the same Republicans supported the same position in the past.

Threatening not to raise the debt ceiling is extreme. Yes, everyone likes to point out that Obama voted against the debt ceiling before but his vote was never a threat to raise the ceiling. Rhetoric against the debt ceiling isn't new either, but it always comes from the minority that has no chance of stopping it. There's a big difference between symbolic votes and actually threatening the faith and credit of our country.

Republicans wanting all of the spending cuts to come out of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (and actually wanting to raise spending on the military) is also extreme. We just went through an election in which both sides got points for accusing the other guy of cutting Medicare. They were smart, polls say over 67% of the country want no cuts to the big three. Ten minutes after the election results are in and the Republicans forget the debate and start screaming for cuts! There is room for reform in the big three, but it can't been done overnight and holding the country hostage isn't the answer.

Until yesterday, practically, their answer to the debt was more tax cuts. Like Clinton said, "It's arithmetic", you can't give yourself a raise by taking a pay cut.

Another hot topic is gun control. This isn't the thread for that, but I've seen polls that say 95% of the country wants background checks. I've never seen a higher poll and the Republicans are either quiet or against-mostly.

The last thing I'll say is extreme is that Republicans don't hold a single position that is popular with the country. Obamacare is the only thing that is even close, and the polls on that are changing in favor of it. It's one thing to have a minority opinion on something, but not on everything.

Bing why should the credit limit be raised when Obama and the Dems have refused to offer up REAL spending cuts. I know libs (and yes the R's and well) like to call reduction in the rate of growth a cut) but how much more debt are you happy to add to the nations credit card? Bing, the entitlements are eating up the budget and unless changed in a short period of time will collapse. When you add in the debt of entitlements the US owes over $100 TRILLION. You did not answer how you want to "solve" the deficit and debt issue only talked about how bad the R's are. You can't tax the debt and deficit away so what can be done?

[red states rule]

And as far as Obamacare Bing....
Fully implementing Obamacare regulations have already cost the U.S. economy $27.6 billion and more than 18,000 jobs according to a new study released today. Just the top ten most expensive regulations have cost $24.4 billion, according to the new non-partisan and independent American Action Forum (AAF) report.
Just complying with the state health exchanges alone has to cost employers $3.4 billion according to the AAF totals which were compiled from Federal Register data. In addition to the regulatory costs, AAF estimates that Obamacare regulatory compliance has eaten up more than 60 million hours in paperwork. At 2,000 hours a year that comes to 30,000 jobs.
The AAF paper also calculated the regulatory costs and job losses in each state for the top ten must expensive Obamacare regulations. California has borne the brunt of Obamacare’s costs suffering $3.4 billion in costs and 2,917 jobs lost. Texas has been hit second hardest with $1.8 billion in costs and 1,292 jobs lost.
AAF Sam Batkins Director of Regulatory Policy comments: “This analysis barely scratches the surface of the regulatory impact of this law. Not only is there still over a year until the law is fully implemented, but we only looked at data that the Administration itself has made public. By looking only at the Administration’s own numbers, they are essentially conceding the fact that the ACA will place billions of dollars in regulatory burdens on the private sector and further strain states’ budgets. With still 15 months until full implementation there’s sure to be more regulatory costs.” http://washingtonexaminer.com/study-obamacare-regs-have-cost-27.6-billion-killed-30000-jobs/article/2510234#.UQJQKTbTmM8

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by red states rule http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610527#post610527)
Are you saying that fact is not correct LR?A day seldom goes by without some lib in DC whining how the "poor" in this country need MORE handouts and how people like me need to finance it



Strange retort by Logroller:


do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you too lazy to explain how he did that?

How can Obama claim to have saved the Auto Industry since you want only Congress to get the full credit? Same question over the stimulus.

I am thinking you figured out a way to never blame Obama.

Thus he should stop claiming credit.

Also, Bush poured like 25 billion dollars into the auto bailout and that is not chump change. And he took actions to save the financial market to prevent it from a meltdown.

Again, Obama takes all the credit.

Funny how it works eh?

[Robert A Whit]

I thought Colin was a "conservative" when he was still active in military decisions and such. I still think he was awesome as a military leader. But as he made the transition from military to politics, I think he also slowly moved towards the center, or even to the left a tad. I don't think he's a bad man, not at all, I just don't see him as a republican.

Colin Powell should have cleared up what was called the Powell Doctrine.

This was not his doctrine. In the Army, I crossed paths with the actual author of that doctrine, a 4 star General by the name of William De Puy who also was in the war in Vietnam as a 3/4 star General.

We used that doctrine in Germany in our unit and he got very famous in the Army for his way of fighting. While we had war games, our unit was the top ranked unit in Germany under his command. He won many awards for his prowess.

So, the right guy should get credit for what got called by the media as the Powell Doctrine.

DePuy developed it at least by the early 1960s and he rewrote the Army manual Generals use when he commanded TRACOC. So before Desert Storm, it was already codified in the Army Manual.

[logroller]

Log, are you disputing that Obama and the dem controlled Congress during obama's first term had the combined power to do exactly that?-Tyr
No. I'm saying th best chance we have at changin this trend is to look at how it was done; not by what party. I have already listed an example of how Obama suspended a rule from the 1996 welfare reform in 2009; in so doing the states were given a broader authority to determine welfare for work qualifications, pending his administration's approval. This is poignant because what media will do if Congress attempts to change that is say, look at how these Congressmen are taking away states' rights-- Can't have that! But the reality is that's exactly what is necessary to reduce welfare spending. But for their monetary interests, media benefits more from conflict-- so they muddle the public discourse with dem/lib/con/rep vitriol instead of specific articles that we should concern ourselves. The problem worsens and ignorance prevails-- but media viewership/listeners goes through the roof. This isn't a characteristic of lib media any more than its a con media-- its just the business. I'm not defending Obama by stating the political machine is broken and we need to focus the specific problems in order to right the process. I'm not a lib or Obama fan-- that's a strawman promoted by media junkies who haven't the stones to investigate the details of law. Much easier to ad hominem.

[bingster]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png



How can Obama claim to have saved the Auto Industry since you want only Congress to get the full credit? Same question over the stimulus.

I am thinking you figured out a way to never blame Obama.

Thus he should stop claiming credit.

Also, Bush poured like 25 billion dollars into the auto bailout and that is not chump change. And he took actions to save the financial market to prevent it from a meltdown.

Again, Obama takes all the credit.

Funny how it works eh?



It's interesting how you twist the rhetoric. The Romney campaign was about blaming Obama for all of those things, while you're accusing Obama of taking all of the credit. If Obama was being unfair, and that accusation was smart politics, don't you think Romney would have used it? Neither side was going to talk about Bush, that would not have gained votes.

[bingster]

Bing why should the credit limit be raised when Obama and the Dems have refused to offer up REAL spending cuts. I know libs (and yes the R's and well) like to call reduction in the rate of growth a cut) but how much more debt are you happy to add to the nations credit card? Bing, the entitlements are eating up the budget and unless changed in a short period of time will collapse. When you add in the debt of entitlements the US owes over $100 TRILLION. You did not answer how you want to "solve" the deficit and debt issue only talked about how bad the R's are. You can't tax the debt and deficit away so what can be done?

Because the debt limit is about debt-money that is already spent. It's not about future spending, it's about paying what we owe.
Fixing the debt can take the form of a significant military cut. We're above cold war spending now, it's time to cut back. Also, instead of cutting programs for the middle class and poor, lets get rid of corporate welfare like oil subsidies.

Entitlements are not about to collapse. I've seen graphs in which Medicare has about 13 years of solvency and has been at that level numerous times before. It always looks bad when the economy is weak-the solvency will increase as the economy picks up. Social Security has over 30 years.

I don't know where you get the $100 trillion. I don't always use sources very well, but that number came from out of space.

[bingster]

And as far as Obamacare Bing....

I've never heard of that survey group before, but their study seems reasonable. I'm not always a fan of Politifact, but here's their take:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/nov/30/pam-bondi/pam-bondi-said-national-studies-show-businesses-ar/

I don't want to argue with your report until I know more about it.

[red states rule]

Because the debt limit is about debt-money that is already spent. It's not about future spending, it's about paying what we owe.
Fixing the debt can take the form of a significant military cut. We're above cold war spending now, it's time to cut back. Also, instead of cutting programs for the middle class and poor, lets get rid of corporate welfare like oil subsidies.

Entitlements are not about to collapse. I've seen graphs in which Medicare has about 13 years of solvency and has been at that level numerous times before. It always looks bad when the economy is weak-the solvency will increase as the economy picks up. Social Security has over 30 years.

I don't know where you get the $100 trillion. I don't always use sources very well, but that number came from out of space.

So as your credit card reaches its limit you do not change your spending habits? You do not CUT back on what you spend and then proceed to pay down the debt? And everytime Dems have "promised" to cut spending in exchange for tax increases - they lied and NEVER delivered the cuts. Bing Social Security and Medicare are heading for bankrupt
Much of the public focus is on the nation's public debt, which is $14.3 trillion. But that doesn't include money guaranteed for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which comes to close to $50 trillion, according to government figures.
The government also is on the hook for other debts such as the programs related to the bailout of the financial system following the crisis of 2008 and 2009, government figures show.
Taken together, Gross puts the total at "nearly $100 trillion," that while perhaps a bit on the high side, places the country in a highly unenviable fiscal position that he said won't find a solution overnight. http://dailybail.com/home/pimcos-bill-gross-the-us-national-debt-is-100-trillion-we-ar.html

[bingster]

I've never heard of that survey group before, but their study seems reasonable. I'm not always a fan of Politifact, but here's their take:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/nov/30/pam-bondi/pam-bondi-said-national-studies-show-businesses-ar/

I don't want to argue with your report until I know more about it.

They are not exactly non-partisan. The president served George H.W. Bush and John McCain. Let alone:

The American Action Forum will lead the policy debate and will seek the input of center-right leaders who understand that government has an important, but limited role in protecting our freedoms, promoting the free-market, and helping our citizens.

I took that from their "about us" portion of their website. They are a conservative think tank like the Heritage Foundation.

[red states rule]

They are not exactly non-partisan. The president served George H.W. Bush and John McCain. Let alone:

The American Action Forum will lead the policy debate and will seek the input of center-right leaders who understand that government has an important, but limited role in protecting our freedoms, promoting the free-market, and helping our citizens.

I took that from their "about us" portion of their website. They are a conservative think tank like the Heritage Foundation.

So attacker the messenger and ignore the message. Libs are on record as saying there is no problem with Social Security and Medicare. I also remember Barney frank and Co saying there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie. Libs will never admit how these programs are broke until one of the checks is sent back to the bank NSF. and then they will blame Pres Bush

[bingster]

So as your credit card reaches its limit you do not change your spending habits? You do not CUT back on what you spend and then proceed to pay down the debt? And everytime Dems have "promised" to cut spending in exchange for tax increases - they lied and NEVER delivered the cuts. Bing Social Security and Medicare are heading for bankrupt

Another interesting post. I never heard of this Gross guy either. I've never even heard this argument before. I just can't believe if it's true it hasn't been brought up before. I'll admit, I've been searching around and haven't found anything to dispute it. It does sound silly when you think of debt that we don't have yet. Does he take into account future economic growth?

[bingster]

So attacker the messenger and ignore the message. Libs are on record as saying there is no problem with Social Security and Medicare. I also remember Barney frank and Co saying there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie. Libs will never admit how these programs are broke until one of the checks is sent back to the bank NSF. and then they will blame Pres Bush

I'm not attacking the messenger. If you want to go back and forth posting conservative vs liberal web links, I don't think that would be constructive.

[Robert A Whit]

It's interesting how you twist the rhetoric. The Romney campaign was about blaming Obama for all of those things, while you're accusing Obama of taking all of the credit. If Obama was being unfair, and that accusation was smart politics, don't you think Romney would have used it? Neither side was going to talk about Bush, that would not have gained votes.

Say what?

I am not discussing what Romney said or did. He is an ordinary citizen.

Bush was much better than the media portrayed him.

For instance, things the left should have loved.

Drive by Bush to get the Fed funds much quicker and with much less hassle to the poor in need.

Democrats hated that program.

Bush poured in 25 billion dollars to save the ass of the auto industry. Democrats sniff and say, so f*n what.
Bush created the plan D prescription drugs. But since it is paid for by insurance companies who then get paid back by the Feds, turns out it is much cheaper than Democrats believed it would be. Do they like it? No. It was a Bush deal.

Romney pissed me off by not trying to walk in on Bush's back. Obama took advantage of it.

Had the republicans had the guts to explain what Bush had really done, it would have helped.

I believe most republicans still like Bush.

Democrats promise upon being born to NEVER support republicans and it is tattooed on their arm so they won't forget the vow. It takes a very strong minded Democrat as I was to decide to shit can that party and move to the proper party, meaning the Rs support human rights. Romneys plan did not pan out did it?

[aboutime]

So attacker the messenger and ignore the message. Libs are on record as saying there is no problem with Social Security and Medicare. I also remember Barney frank and Co saying there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie. Libs will never admit how these programs are broke until one of the checks is sent back to the bank NSF. and then they will blame Pres Bush


Who can't forget Dear Ole Barney? 4392THanFranTHisco's wannabe CongressSweety.

[bingster]

I'm not attacking the messenger. If you want to go back and forth posting conservative vs liberal web links, I don't think that would be constructive.

And I didn't ignore the message. I said that the study seems reasonable, but I don't know where they get their figures from.

[Robert A Whit]

So attacker the messenger and ignore the message. Libs are on record as saying there is no problem with Social Security and Medicare. I also remember Barney frank and Co saying there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie. Libs will never admit how these programs are broke until one of the checks is sent back to the bank NSF. and then they will blame Pres Bush

The so called Libs (what a fake word in their case) make it part of their DNA to ignore the truth but try to take credit away from Rs who got it right. SS has major flaws.

For instance, the payments to SS are similar to a ponzi scheme. I got in early. I reap enormous rewards. I admit it. I have not recently tried to calculate my gains but it has to be in the thousands of percent gains. I am very pleased. But when my grandson retires, unless they stab his paycheck for a hell of a lot more, he gets the shaft when I got the gold mine.

To be able to pay the bills later on, the Democrats can't think past tomorrow so they ignore what you explained. Medicare will bankrupt the country. But let's not forget that Obama ripped off Medicare providers who I am sure may not want to stay as providers. I am pretty persuaded Obama planned it to be like that to put us all on Government support and of course jacking up all our taxes sky high.

[bingster]

Say what?

I am not discussing what Romney said or did. He is an ordinary citizen.

Bush was much better than the media portrayed him.

For instance, things the left should have loved.

Drive by Bush to get the Fed funds much quicker and with much less hassle to the poor in need.

Democrats hated that program.

Bush poured in 25 billion dollars to save the ass of the auto industry. Democrats sniff and say, so f*n what.
Bush created the plan D prescription drugs. But since it is paid for by insurance companies who then get paid back by the Feds, turns out it is much cheaper than Democrats believed it would be. Do they like it? No. It was a Bush deal.

Romney pissed me off by not trying to walk in on Bush's back. Obama took advantage of it.

Had the republicans had the guts to explain what Bush had really done, it would have helped.

I believe most republicans still like Bush.

Democrats promise upon being born to NEVER support republicans and it is tattooed on their arm so they won't forget the vow. It takes a very strong minded Democrat as I was to decide to shit can that party and move to the proper party, meaning the Rs support human rights. Romneys plan did not pan out did it?


In talking about Medicare part D and other liberal-like spending, I never criticized the spending as much as I used it to combat the accusation that Obama was such a spend thrift. Conservatives love to adopt amnesia when they criticize Obama's spending. Even the tea party guys say, albeit suspiciously late in timing, that they were against Bush too but didn't decide to speak up until Obama's election.

[Robert A Whit]

Because the debt limit is about debt-money that is already spent. It's not about future spending, it's about paying what we owe.
Fixing the debt can take the form of a significant military cut. We're above cold war spending now, it's time to cut back. Also, instead of cutting programs for the middle class and poor, lets get rid of corporate welfare like oil subsidies.

Entitlements are not about to collapse. I've seen graphs in which Medicare has about 13 years of solvency and has been at that level numerous times before. It always looks bad when the economy is weak-the solvency will increase as the economy picks up. Social Security has over 30 years.

I don't know where you get the $100 trillion. I don't always use sources very well, but that number came from out of space.

When they borrow money, to reach that debt limit, it does not help.

If I loan you a million dollars. You now owe 1 million dollars.

To pay me back, You increase your debt limit to pay me, but now you not only owe the same bill, you also owe interest.

This game Obama plays is called fiscal suicide. Since he became president, he has far outspent Bush. Not by a few hundred billion, but by at least 8 trillion dollars to date.

Some of that is based on your claim that he already owes the money to creditors.

[Robert A Whit]

In talking about Medicare part D and other liberal-like spending, I never criticized the spending as much as I used it to combat the accusation that Obama was such a spend thrift. Conservatives love to adopt amnesia when they criticize Obama's spending. Even the tea party guys say, albeit suspiciously late in timing, that they were against Bush too but didn't decide to speak up until Obama's election.

I can't recall the tea party sending me any literature claiming they don't like Bush. A few things Bush did, such as Plan D they might not like.

Obama has greatly added to the public debt. Why do you suppose even though he sends Congress a budget, that the Democrats block the budget once it reaches the Senate?

This way nobody sees an official budget as we did before so it masks the spending of Obama. Do you see him demanding a budget be passed by his own party?

He never mentions the budget.

Plan D was great for me, bad for the country.

[Robert A Whit]

See following bizarre claim.


On my last point, I can't help but point out that Republican's behavior during the campaign was extreme. When you can't win with your ideas, it isn't cool to change the rules. The changes to the voting laws was not about voter fraud. Republican state officials spoke out and blatantly declared what they were doing. They were trying to rig the election to keep Democrats from voting. There were many examples of this including billboards in minority communities to scare people regarding voter fraud, changing early voting especially the last Sunday that blacks are known to traditionally vote on, and the ID laws. If you can't prove the crime, you shouldn't make the law-talk about big government.



This bogus claim would stop republicans from voting were it to stop democrats from voting.

My god. And this is part of Democrat 101 training.

I would love to see actual reports where republicans claimed they were rigging the election.

Many states including my state provides for voting from your home.

Given that is universial, how can just democrats who can vote from home, be stopped from voting? We have plenty of time to prepare for the next election including some form of state approved ID.

I am thinking that what Democrats may be trying to tell us is that Democrats fuck off and don't get any ID for any reason at all. Thus since they procrastinate to the ultimate degree, they have fucked off so much they are not ready for some election.

I notice they vote at the state level and I don't recall them protesting they can't vote on state issues.

Supposedly it is only over presidents.

Strange brains in their heads if they do not really believe what is done to any voter applies to all voters.

[ConHog]

I thought Colin was a "conservative" when he was still active in military decisions and such. I still think he was awesome as a military leader. But as he made the transition from military to politics, I think he also slowly moved towards the center, or even to the left a tad. I don't think he's a bad man, not at all, I just don't see him as a republican.

Kinda my point to Jim, we actually don't know where is politically really all we do know is quite a coincidence that he just happened to switch from the Republican party to the Democratic when a black man was the Democratic nominee.

[red states rule]

And I didn't ignore the message. I said that the study seems reasonable, but I don't know where they get their figures from.

Bing, the bottom line is this nation is BROKE. Obama and the Dems cannot tax the nation out of this debt crisis. IRS numbers show Obama could tax the top 2% at a 199% tax rate and only bring in enough money to run his government for about one month. SS and Medicare are running out of money and SS will be running a deficit BEFORE Obama leaves office. Obama is building his legacy - a legacy of BANKRUPTCY