Disgusted With Obama Administration.
-
majorspark
Never said they don't on occasion.Ty Webb;885519 wrote:Spark.....Don't act like the right doesn't act this way either.
The rhetoric is not the major issue. Sharp rhetoric has been used by both sides through out the history of this nation. I realize in most cases these people on both sides are speaking metaphorically. But a certain group of people in the media and in government after a national tragedy called for more civil discourse in politics. Palin was skewered for targeting congressional districts. The media went gangbusters on the issue. Obama gave a passionate speech on civil discourse.Ty Webb;885519 wrote:Not saying what our side is doing is right....but don't act this is solely a Democrat thing
Now members of the Congressional Black Caucus engage in even more sharp political rhetoric. A group I might add Obama should have considerable influence over. Yet nary a word from Obama. It makes me and others believe Obama's comments in Arizona were not born out of a heart felt belief, but rather an opportunity to gain political ground. -
jmog
What does a hunting accident have to do with anything you are talking about? That came from far left field.Ty Webb;885550 wrote:Fair Point BG.....but answer me this:
What president doesn't look the other way when his party says **** like this?
I mean.....Bush was awful quiet when Cheney shot a man in the face -
Manhattan Buckeye
It is desperation. Obama's administration is on the line with Thursday's speech, if Monday's speech is any sort of indication it will be a disaster. All they have is blame, blame, blame and more blame and no leadership or ideas. Left field is a compliment, they aren't even playing the stupid game. The administration gets worse with each passing day, would it hurt to show some sort of leadership? You can't on the one hand condemn "uncivil" comments and a few months later let this stand. Total incompetence at this point.jmog;885715 wrote:What does a hunting accident have to do with anything you are talking about? That came from far left field. -
believer
This administration has the blame game down to an art form. The Blame Bush "strategery" worked well for the first couple of years but that has run its course.Manhattan Buckeye;885749 wrote:It is desperation. Obama's administration is on the line with Thursday's speech, if Monday's speech is any sort of indication it will be a disaster. All they have is blame, blame, blame and more blame and no leadership or ideas. Left field is a compliment, they aren't even playing the stupid game. The administration gets worse with each passing day, would it hurt to show some sort of leadership? You can't on the one hand condemn "uncivil" comments and a few months later let this stand. Total incompetence at this point.
If the Bammer isn't blaming his problems on Bush, he enjoys wagging his finger at Republicans in Congress. BHO fails to lead and inspire. He blames, chastises, and complains.
BHO's charm and his initial "hope & change" charisma have run out of steam. It will be interesting to see what spin the MSM will come up with to make the Bammer look like the victim of failed Bush policies and latent racism among white American males when his re-election bid gathers full steam.
No wait...that's already happening. -
QuakerOats
-
jhay78
I took your point to be that presidents are ultimately responsible for budgets and their contributions to the debt (for better or worse), and that Congress ultimately gives the President what he wants. My point, and the point of about a dozen other posters of sound mind on this site, is that Congress bears more blame (or credit) than what you are saying.Footwedge;885619 wrote:LOL. Like clockwork. Clinton gets all the blame...but the Congress gets all the credit...for the federal surplus. Thanks for 100% proving my point!
So I'm not sure how giving Congress more credit for the budget of the Clinton years proves your point, but carry on I guess.
Never blamed Congress.LOL. Once again, thanks for proving my point. War turns to crap, and you blame the Congress...great job!.
"Do whatever you see fit to do" = a de facto declaration of war. The Constitution does not say what form an actual declaration of war should be, so there was nothing "illegal" about it. But hey, I guess "your book" > the Constitution.And BTW...the war was illegal in my book....there was no declaration of war made by Congress. After the Congress was lied to by the band of neocons in the executive branch, the Congress said...."hey Bush and Cheney, do whatever you see fit to do".
Really? Yet they're responsible for declarations of war? Don't act like Bush and Cheney wrote the intel documents.The ridiculous talking point that somehow the Congress "agreed" with the bogus intelligence, is one of the biggest piles of crap ever constituted by the warhawks. A joke....and in my opinion, indefensible. It was not the Congress' job to interpret tens of thousands of pages regarding intel documents.
-
fish82
Clinton didn't even propose a balanced budget until FY 1999, after the gubmint was already running in the black. Every budget prior to 1998 ran deficits as far out as they eye could see.Footwedge;885619 wrote:LOL. Like clockwork. Clinton gets all the blame...but the Congress gets all the credit...for the federal surplus. Thanks for 100% proving my point! -
Writerbuckeye
jhay and fish: logic never works with folks like this. Most of their arguments are based on emotional rants, not on facts. Note all the inflammatory wording he used in his statements. Agree or disagree with the intelligence, it was what it was, and it had an awful lot of very smart people convinced. In hindsight or through the lens of bias it's easy to say it shouldn't have happened. Reasonable people disagree. -
gut
I hope this comes full-circle when America warms to the idea of voting its first black POTUS out-of-office. C'mon, it's another historic milestone! One I intend to be a part of. Just as it was a sign of progress to look past the color of his skin and give a "promising" candidate the office, we must again look past the color of his skin and boot out an unqualified and incapable POTUS.believer;885877 wrote: BHO's charm and his initial "hope & change" charisma have run out of steam. -
believer
Fire the first black Jimmy Carter, eh?gut;887069 wrote:I hope this comes full-circle when America warms to the idea of voting its first black POTUS out-of-office. C'mon, it's another historic milestone! One I intend to be a part of. Just as it was a sign of progress to look past the color of his skin and give a "promising" candidate the office, we must again look past the color of his skin and boot out an unqualified and incapable POTUS.
Personally I can't wait to vote for the first highly qualified conservative black POTUS in U.S. history. That's something we can be truly proud of. -
Manhattan Buckeye
My closest friend (Dallas, TX native and partner at Baker Botts) swears J.C. Watts is that guy.believer;887076 wrote:Fire the first black Jimmy Carter, eh?
Personally I can't wait to vote for the first highly qualified conservative black POTUS in U.S. history. That's something we can be truly proud of. -
believer
I can't disagree.Manhattan Buckeye;887080 wrote:My closest friend (Dallas, TX native and partner at Baker Botts) swears J.C. Watts is that guy. -
QuakerOats
Now polling much worse than Jimmy Carter ............. his boat is listing badly.believer;887076 wrote:Fire the first black Jimmy Carter, eh?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/09/08/poll-obama-five-times-worse-than-carter-on-economy?s_cid=rss:washington- -
Footwedge
SMH. I will respond to all your points...too busy right now. I will say that your preception of reality is a lot different that what reality truly is.jhay78;886249 wrote:I took your point to be that presidents are ultimately responsible for budgets and their contributions to the debt (for better or worse), and that Congress ultimately gives the President what he wants. My point, and the point of about a dozen other posters of sound mind on this site, is that Congress bears more blame (or credit) than what you are saying.
So I'm not sure how giving Congress more credit for the budget of the Clinton years proves your point, but carry on I guess.
Never blamed Congress.
"Do whatever you see fit to do" = a de facto declaration of war. The Constitution does not say what form an actual declaration of war should be, so there was nothing "illegal" about it. But hey, I guess "your book" > the Constitution
Really? Yet they're responsible for declarations of war? Don't act like Bush and Cheney wrote the intel documents. -
GRAYWOLF
-
Footwedge
What I am saying is that the veto pen belongs in the hand of the president. And because of that, the buck pretty much stops with him. Less than 10% of laws vetoed have been overridden by Congresses.jhay78;886249 wrote:I took your point to be that presidents are ultimately responsible for budgets and their contributions to the debt (for better or worse), and that Congress ultimately gives the President what he wants. My point, and the point of about a dozen other posters of sound mind on this site, is that Congress bears more blame (or credit) than what you are saying.
My point is this. There are partisan hacks on this site from both sides (mostly from the right) that will blame the Congress to suit their own agenda, and then blame the president when it also serves their agenda. And what's remarkable, they are too stupid to understand how hypocritical their thought processes are.So I'm not sure how giving Congress more credit for the budget of the Clinton years proves your point, but carry on I guess.
Now this statement here shows ignorance on your part. If you knew your constitution, then you would never have said this. Up until...and including WWII, the US isssued a clear and concise formal "Declaration of War". There was no such declaration for Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Gulf 1, Kosovo, Operation Iraqi Freedom, nor Afghanistan.Do whatever you see fit to do" = a de facto declaration of war. The Constitution does not say what form an actual declaration of war should be, so there was nothing "illegal" about it. But hey, I guess "your book" > the Constitution.
I could fill up 10 pages rebutting your little snippet here. So I will try to summarize...because I have other things to do...given it is Friday night.Really? Yet they're responsible for declarations of war? Don't act like Bush and Cheney wrote the intel documents.
The biggest load of crap ever spewed by the "I love War" crowd is the utter nonsense that Congress agreed with Bush on Iraq. Let's roll the tape, shall we?
In September of 2002, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoliza Rice....all stated on American national television that Saddam Hussein had WMD, and was going to use them on the US.
Theymmade these fear mongering statements based on manipulated dossiers from our 16 intelligence agencies. There now declassified sources? 2 Iraqi dissidents named Curveball and Ahmad Chelabi, both of whom were known serial liars and who hated Saddam Hussein.
The lie factory also included more war mongering...in stating that Hussein had purchased aluminum tubes to manufacture nuclear weapons, when in fact the integral engineered components could never be used for nuclear bombs...as confirmed by several US scientists long before the Iraq War commenced in March of 03. The lie factory continued forward stating that Saddam attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Nigerian officiakls for nuclear proliferation, inspite of the fact that the FBI and the CIA had already thoroughly, and compltetedly debunked this remote possibilit. (Forget about Joe Wilson...all he did was confirm what the FBI and the CIA had already done).
The members of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, had jobs to do...back in 02 and 03. And their jobs did NOT encompass deciphering the material from our 16 intel agencies. They were hoodwinked into believing the stunning lies purported from the Office of Special Plans....an organization formed by Andrew Card, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay and Paul Wolfowitz....5 of the biggest neocons...to ever reside in the White House. Needless to say, none of these cowards had ever donned the American uniform. -
gut
I'd be satisfied just to vote for a highly qualified POTUS. The color of his/her skin shouldn't have anything to do with it. The idea of that as a sign of progress is truly a load of crap, but one a lot of people bought into.believer;887076 wrote: Personally I can't wait to vote for the first highly qualified conservative black POTUS in U.S. history. That's something we can be truly proud of. -
believer
I agree. My point was, in fact, to get past the notion that skin color matters. Think about it....if we can, indeed, elect a black conservative as POTUS, then we truly have set aside race as an issue in American politics.gut;889655 wrote:I'd be satisfied just to vote for a highly qualified POTUS. The color of his/her skin shouldn't have anything to do with it. The idea of that as a sign of progress is truly a load of crap, but one a lot of people bought into. -
Writerbuckeye
This is correct.believer;889730 wrote:I agree. My point was, in fact, to get past the notion that skin color matters. Think about it....if we can, indeed, elect a black conservative as POTUS, then we truly have set aside race as an issue in American politics.
Conservative blacks face arguably more racism than any other group -- the most heated from their own race, typically. Calls of "Uncle Tom" are not uncommon when a conservative black is in a position of power with a Republican administration.
There are still too many race shills out there, along with racist organizations like the NAACP, that simply can't abide the thought of a conservative black. They are so in bed with the Democrat Party, it won't allow them to step aside and applaud the achievements of someone who is their own race but lives by a different political philosophy. -
believer
Precisely.Writerbuckeye;889864 wrote:This is correct.
Conservative blacks face arguably more racism than any other group -- the most heated from their own race, typically. Calls of "Uncle Tom" are not uncommon when a conservative black is in a position of power with a Republican administration.
There are still too many race shills out there, along with racist organizations like the NAACP, that simply can't abide the thought of a conservative black. They are so in bed with the Democrat Party, it won't allow them to step aside and applaud the achievements of someone who is their own race but lives by a different political philosophy. -
BGFalcons82
We get the devil in the details from Barry on his new jobs bill - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/13/obama-takes-jobs-plan-to-voters-as-gop-questions-tax-component/
For those that claim he is not a marxist, he is clearly advocating a, "from each according to their means to each according to their needs", philosophy. Taking tax dollars from the evil rich scum making over $200,000 per year and redistributing it to unions, state/federal workers, shovel-ready (hahahahahahohohohohehehehehe) projects, and "job training" is right up Karl's doctrines. By the way, when did those making over $200K become millionaires and corporate jet owners?
Can anyone please describe how moving money from one segment of the population, taking the government 20% to 25% cut off the top, and then giving it away to other segments of the country creates wealth or jobs? By confiscating more from those that earn it, how does that help them create any jobs? Or would they be more likely to hoard what they have and wait out this one-termer? -
QuakerOatsobamanomics: trickle up poverty
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Poverty-rate-rises-as-incomes-cnnm-3626085049.html?x=0&.v=3
change we can believe in ........ -
BoatShoes
Actually it sounds more like the guy who said this "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State." Hint, hint, Adam Smith who supported progressive taxation and got the ball rolling on this whole capitalism thingy.BGFalcons82;894186 wrote:We get the devil in the details from Barry on his new jobs bill - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/13/obama-takes-jobs-plan-to-voters-as-gop-questions-tax-component/
For those that claim he is not a marxist, he is clearly advocating a, "from each according to their means to each according to their needs", philosophy. Taking tax dollars from the evil rich scum making over $200,000 per year and redistributing it to unions, state/federal workers, shovel-ready (hahahahahahohohohohehehehehe) projects, and "job training" is right up Karl's doctrines. By the way, when did those making over $200K become millionaires and corporate jet owners?
And, being as such that BHO has proposed the hike on personal income taxes to 39.6% on the top marginal rate to help reduce the deficit...not to redistribute to other people. the redistribution you irrationally fear and which Obama has never supported involves transfer payments from one person to another through things like SNAP or TANF. Furthermore, increasing taxes on those in the top marginal rate bracket to pay for payroll tax cuts and tax cuts for business owners is a more efficient way of stimulating the economy without having the tax raises negatively effect unemployment like say, firing FBI agents might, etc.
Additionally, although it is disingenuous for BHO to refer to those in the top marginal rate bracket as "millionaires and billionaires" it is not that far off. A person's taxable income is not the salary they agreed to with their boss but the income left over after the plethora of distortionary deductions we now have in the code. For a Married Couple to be in the top marginal tax bracket they're going to have to earn more than $250,000 a year in ordinary income.
But as to your claim about "marxism," there is a serious difference between governments actively using fiscal policy in ways that can lower unemployment while also mitigating medium term deficit impact and government ownership of all private property so much so that failing to delineate between the begs the question as to whether one who is making the assertion you are is capable of having an adult conversation.
One thing though that Barry should trump up more is a cut in the marginal rates on corporations. Tax receipts from taxes on corporations have averaged only 1.4% of GDP the last two years so reducing those marginal rates would have a lesser impact on our deficit and, at the very least, combat the idea the he is anti-capitalist, etc. He mentioned doing it in his speech but he should trump it up more IMHO. There is little evidence in the literature to suggest that it will increase investment in capital goods as much of this comes from retained earnings and internally generated funds stemming from spending by governments, individuals and businesses but he needs to do something to hard and solid to fight the unsupported notion that he's an anti-capitalist.
But finally, Adam Smith would not think a higher marginal rate for taxable income above $250,000 for a married couple is "marxist" nor contrary to the ideals of capitalism and wealth creation but wholly consistent with the concept of a social contract so perhaps you shouldn't either. -
QuakerOatsBoatShoes;894509 wrote:...not to redistribute to other people. the redistribution you irrationally fear and which Obama has never supported ...
Somebody beam me up -
Cleveland Buck
Obama supports the same redistribution of wealth that both parties have for 90 years. Debasing the currency and inflated prices by default redistributes wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich.