Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • QuakerOats
    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ener1-parent-obama-backed-green-company-files-bankruptcy/story?id=15456414

    Unbelievable. But remember, this guy does have intellectual superiority.

    The beat goes on .......
  • BGFalcons82
    I love some red meat courtesy of Allen West on a Sunday afternoon - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8YDnd1Yoyk#!
  • ptown_trojans_1
    BGFalcons82;1068964 wrote:I love some red meat courtesy of Allen West on a Sunday afternoon - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8YDnd1Yoyk#!
    SMH, its language like that that is what turn moderates like me away from both sides.
    No need to tell the other side, left or right, to get the hell out of the country.
  • HitsRus
    I would gather by the fact Paul recieves more support from the militarythan any of the other candidates that the people who fight these wars dont agree with you
    http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-s-military-support-awol-south-carolina-exit-polls-say

    I would gather by the exit polls from South Carolina...which has more than it's share of military bases that the people who fight these wars don't necessarily agree with you either.
    Of those who identified themselves as veterans or active duty military, Ron Paul received only 12 percent of the vote. Newt Gingrich, the clear winner of the primary, received 39 percent of the military vote, followed by Romney at 32 percent. Even Rick Santorum received more votes from the military than Paul.
  • majorspark
    HitsRus;1069623 wrote:http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-s-military-support-awol-south-carolina-exit-polls-say

    I would gather by the exit polls from South Carolina...which has more than it's share of military bases that the people who fight these wars don't necessarily agree with you either.
    How do you expect them to vote? Any differently than the seniors fearing their social security checks will be taken away?

    "Tens of thousands of veterans live here, and countless civilians depend on an economy powered by the armed services"

    I found this quote in the article quite telling. This is not what the framers envisioned the armed forces would become. They would be scared shitless of it. An economy empowered by the armed services. God save the republic.

    Think about why they chose to place in the Bill of Rights:
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law

    They were not being unpatriotic by giving the individual the right to cast out the military. Just a righteous fear of big military power. Especially at the federal level. I ask you this. Is there a difference with an economic fear of the military? Just property over life? Are we cool with that? We conservatives rail about the economic fear the left portrays when we propose any change to reform or scale back any federal domestic program. Lets not do the same. Think about it.

    I have gone at it with the ronulans several times reguarding our constitutional role in the world. There is no doubt we have strayed outside of it at times. I have laid out my disagreements with them in principle. The arguement is becoming mute as our fiscal situation becomes increasingly unsound.
  • Footwedge
    majorspark;1069694 wrote:How do you expect them to vote? Any differently than the seniors fearing their social security checks will be taken away?

    "Tens of thousands of veterans live here, and countless civilians depend on an economy powered by the armed services"

    I found this quote in the article quite telling. This is not what the framers envisioned the armed forces would become. They would be scared ****less of it. An economy empowered by the armed services. God save the republic.

    Think about why they chose to place in the Bill of Rights:
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law

    They were not being unpatriotic by giving the individual the right to cast out the military. Just a righteous fear of big military power. Especially at the federal level. I ask you this. Is there a difference with an economic fear of the military? Just property over life? Are we cool with that? We conservatives rail about the economic fear the left portrays when we propose any change to reform or scale back any federal domestic program. Lets not do the same. Think about it.

    I have gone at it with the ronulans several times reguarding our constitutional role in the world. There is no doubt we have strayed outside of it at times. I have laid out my disagreements with them in principle. The arguement is becoming mute as our fiscal situation becomes increasingly unsound.
    Yes indeed....Ron would put the brakes on the military Keynesinists in SC. It is in fact the families of the grunts across the seas who see the blown off body parts that line Dr. Paul's coiffers....not the paper shufflers.
  • QuakerOats
    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/207439-federal-workers-get-16-percent-more-than-private-sector-cbo-finds


    Change we can believe in .......
  • gut
    Gubmit has always been a good job, trade some up-front comp for fewer hours and some additional back-loaded comp, plus job security. Now, if you're part of the "95%", it's a GREAT job - MORE comp than you could get in the private sector and STILL fewer hours and better job security.
  • QuakerOats
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-taxes-will-shoot-more-30-percent-over-next-2-years

    Get ready to bend over .... again.

    November '12 cannot arrive soon enough.
  • Devils Advocate
    QuakerOats;1071414 wrote: November '12 cannot arrive soon enough.
    I agree. When BHO is elected for his second term, I am sure that your head will explode.

    CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” said CBO, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT)
  • QuakerOats
    Devils Advocate;1071422 wrote:I agree. When BHO is elected for his second term, I am sure that your head will explode.
    Actually, the nation will explode ..... or implode.
    Obama runs up another trillion-dollar deficit...

    CBO says real unemployment at 10%...
  • Bigdogg
    I ran across this interesting analysis of the budget deficit. Hope Belly enjoys it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

  • fish82
    Loves me some Ezra Klein math. He be so cool. :rolleyes:
  • pmoney25
    All that chart shows me is both Bush and Obama are terrible.
  • jmog
    Bigdogg;1072011 wrote:I ran across this interesting analysis of the budget deficit. Hope Belly enjoys it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

    I love how they extend out Obama for 8 years based on only the current laws that has passed in his 3 years. Nothing said about the next 5 years.

    Oh yeah, and you won't find many conservatives that was happy with Bush's spending habits either.
  • pmoney25
    Plus I like the philosophy of hey I use to overspend by $100, now I cut that down to $90 but dont worry that im still overspending.
  • QuakerOats
    Bigdog -- let's assume that Bush's deficits were as bad as you portray them; how then do you explain/rationalize/justify/defend obama's deficit spending rate, which is more than twice that of Bush? And if you run the numbers for another obama term it is even more disastrous. Please enlighten us.
  • fish82
    Guys...It's Ezra Klein. It's not even worth the effort to discuss it...He's that much of a 'tard.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1072261 wrote:I love how they extend out Obama for 8 years based on only the current laws that has passed in his 3 years. Nothing said about the next 5 years.

    Oh yeah, and you won't find many conservatives that was happy with Bush's spending habits either.
    You don't see ANY conservatives (aside from the Paul people who "real conservatives "don't align with) saying that George w. Bush was a socialist tyrant who will bring america to her knees because of his policies and suing his administration in federal court.
  • QuakerOats
    Here is something worth noting ---- and expected by most of us:

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

    The country is going red .... big time
  • BoatShoes
    Because even without a fiscal stimulus the government is going to run a deficit in a depressed economy and that's why the budget needs to be balanced over the business cycle. When u have huge deficits during "good times" as we did the deficits will explode during the bad times.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1072359 wrote:Because even without a fiscal stimulus the government is going to run a deficit in a depressed economy and that's why the budget needs to be balanced over the business cycle. When u have huge deficits during "good times" as we did the deficits will explode during the bad times.

    Thanks for at least admitting, in a round-about way, that government is obviously too big.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1072350 wrote:You don't see ANY conservatives (aside from the Paul people who "real conservatives "don't align with) saying that George w. Bush was a socialist tyrant who will bring america to her knees because of his policies and suing his administration in federal court.
    BS, you see, as much as they couldn't stand Bush's spending.

    His spending was not "socialist" in nature. It was tax cuts FOR EVERYONE (not just the rich like the liberals want everyone to believe) and the wars.

    However, you DID see conservatives have a HUGE problem with his ones that WERE "socialistic" like TARP and HERA. However, these were late in his term and honestly not enough time had elapsed for what you want.

    However, most of the spending under Obama's list absolutely ARE "socialistic" in nature. Even the things he wants but hasn't got passed like extending the tax cuts for everyone BUT the rich. Socialized health care, take over of GM, stimulus packages, etc.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Interesting that the same numbers for Bush would yield a box 2-3 times larger than for Obama. I'm sure it wasn't meant to mislead. :rolleyes:
  • Bigdogg
    queencitybuckeye;1072477 wrote:Interesting that the same numbers for Bush would yield a box 2-3 times larger than for Obama. I'm sure it wasn't meant to mislead. :rolleyes:
    Bush added 5 trillion, Obama 1 billion. Seems the box size is right for the argument.