DescentBB

I find myself agreeing with most of this article. Lately I've been mulling over the idea of supporting a primary challenger for these reasons, too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca ... 90819.html

article wrote:The Republicans are on television every day admitting that their entire goal is simply to screw the president by sabotaging the economic recovery. This is unbelievable. Eight years ago, these were the same people who insisted that merely criticizing the commander-in-chief during wartime would endanger the troops. Now these same bastards are not just criticizing the president, but they're questioning his religion, his citizenship, his loyalty to America -- and they're endeavoring, as their primary goal, to make him fail by dragging the economy down. They're doing this by filibustering policies that stimulate economic growth (unemployment benefits, for example), while promoting ideas that don't stimulate economic growth at all (Bush tax rates, for example).

The president, meanwhile, appears to be operating under the frustratingly obvious misapprehension that the Republicans will reciprocate his generosity, and, if they don't, the American people will punish the Republicans accordingly. The Republicans won't reciprocate at all, of course, and the American people won't notice their grabassery. And the ones who do will get caught up in the Fox News, AM radio tsunami and somehow end up blaming the president for being overly partisan.

PROTIP: Read the article in Stephen Fry's voice.

I haven't read the article yet but this grabbed me from reading the part you posted. The author either doesn't get it or is just pretending to not get it so it won't interfere with his rhetoric when it comes to the following statement he made:

The Republicans are on television every day admitting that their entire goal is simply to screw the president by sabotaging the economic recovery. This is unbelievable. Eight years ago, these were the same people who insisted that merely criticizing the commander-in-chief during wartime would endanger the troops.

Criticizing the commander in chief as a congressman who is capable of voting to pull the troops out of a battle prematurely can be very hazardous to the troops. the enemy could be on the verge of giving in, either in a particular region of the battle field or overall yet when he hears the congress start to talk about ending that illegal war\"....\"we should impeach the President\" he may decide to hang in there and fight a little longer. Longer fight=more dead soldiers.

This is not the same as criticizing the President for his domestic policy. Not even close.

Anyway, I don't expect an unbiased piece after reading that opener. Just my opinion your mileage may vary.

So, will you be reading the entire article?

Will Robinson wrote:Anyway, I don't expect an unbiased piece after reading that opener. Just my opinion your mileage may vary.

I don't expect an unbiased reporting from the Huffington Post.

What I want to know is why wasn't Obama able to do any of this for his first 2 years in office. He had a majority congress and the executive office, and yet nothing happened except for a HUGE amount of money being borrowed from our 'masters' that ensures we're enslaved for at least another 100 years. He had all the support he needed to get ★■◆● done for all that time, but now it's somebody else's fault.
I can't believe people keep falling for this ★■◆●.

flip wrote:What I want to know is why wasn't Obama able to do any of this for his first 2 years in office. He had a majority congress and the executive office, and yet nothing happened except for a HUGE amount of money being borrowed from our 'masters' that ensures we're enslaved for at least another 100 years. He had all the support he needed to get ***** done for all that time, but now it's somebody else's fault.
I can't believe people keep falling for this *****.

Agreed

and yet with all the unstoppable power that the DNC has had for the last two years. what masterpiece of legislation do we recieve?? Obama-care

PARTY OF NO, PARTY OF NO.

I find it interesting that people want to bemoan the RNC for opposing Much of what the DNC proposed. is it possible that the RNC was right in doing so??? it would seem that the American voters think so, judging by the last election and the Drubbing that the DNC took. it was the largest shift in power since 1938 when guess which party got their butts handed to them. yep the DNC when they lost 72 house seats while presiding over one of the largest expansions of Government in our history. sound familiar?

Those that forget their past are doomed to repeat it.

null0010 wrote:So, will you be reading the entire article?

OK, so I read it all. I don't disagree with his reason for being disapointed in the Presidents actions because Obama is weak when it comes to bringing ideas to the table. He could use his bully pulpit and push back successfully at the opposition if he came forward with a better plan to spur the economy but he doesn't do that. He's a community agitator by trade not an executive who works within the operating system he's put in charge of. He's the guy from the outside who promises to tear it down if we would just rally around him...he's the guy who will extort from the powerful supposedly to feed the poor. He's used to claiming to be Robin Hood only he's taken the job of the Sheriff of Nottingham so his skill set is completely lacking for the position he's in.

And the author is way to blinded by his partisanship when it comes to the tax cut issue. No, Bush's tax cuts 'didn't create any jobs' in the literal sense. but the people who have disposable income who also run small business are the engine that propels the economy and Bush's tax cuts were the reason many of those people were in a position to re-invest in their companies and/or expand which translates into job creation. In the situation we are in now anything that makes the people that do the hiring of new workers decide to hold off and keep their money safe is very bad for the recovery we seek! Democrats/Obama not willing to announce their budget , their tax plan,(because the election was coming) was bad for business which is bad for creating new jobs or saving existing jobs.
I fired a guy because things got slow and I decided it wasn't worth it to keep his truck on the road so I have one service tech instead of two now and I drive the second service truck when we need another guy in the field. why? Because I'm protecting my money until I know what the stupid healthcare law and tax law will do to me!!
I'm making a higher profit margin right now because of it. $74 per hour labor rate but no payroll since I own the company and I'm working out of truck #2 instead of the guy I fired so for me it is profitable but for the economy I've reduced the number of jobs out there and increased the unemployment ranks because the Democrats and Obama can't be trusted.

So the author just doesn't get it and although the repubs suck in many ways their standing firm to oppose any tax increases right now is a good thing.

W.R. wrote:So the author just doesn't get it and although the repubs suck in many ways their standing firm to oppose any tax increases right now is a good thing.

Now if only they would support spending cuts.

\"Kumbaya\" and \"Consensus\", Obama's guaranteed loss in 2012. The liberals I've listened to are going to drop Obama like a rock in 2012 if he caves to Republican demands on this ONE item.

I hope the Dems have the rocks let the tax cuts expire and call the Repubs bluff. It'll help with our massive debt at least. Tax cuts won't stimulate the economy any more now than they did during Bush's reign. Trickle down economics does not work, the rich only get richer. \"Boner\" can go and sit in a pile of \"chicken crap\" for all I care.

All those in favor of tax increases, take out your check books and write the government a nice big check…there’s nothing stopping you, ya know.

tunnelcat wrote:the rich only get richer.

It's not like this has been happening through out history.

tunnelcat wrote:...

I hope the Dems have the rocks let the tax cuts expire and call the Repubs bluff. It'll help with our massive debt at least.

Yea because reducing the debt by a fraction so small it is unnoticable on paper let alone in the lives of those looking for work is so much more important than having business owners create more jobs!

tunnelcat wrote:Tax cuts won't stimulate the economy any more now than they did during Bush's reign.

And tax increases will?!? Because that is exactly the net result of what the dems propose! They want tax rates to increase and they are counting on fools to call it something like "eliminating tax cuts"! You can buy that silly stupid line if you want but the cold hard truth is tax rates will increase if they get what they want and that will work against the chance of job creators adding to their payroll.
When the rich get richer the people they employ to help them achieve wealth get paid. If you are so stupid as to oppose rich people getting richer as a blanket policy objective then you are in favor of continuously increasing unemployment ratios.

Will Robinson wrote:Yea because reducing the debt by a fraction so small it is unnoticable on paper let alone in the lives of those looking for work is so much more important than having business owners create more jobs!

Extending ALL the Bush tax cuts for the next 10 years would ADD $3.8 TRILLION to the growing national debt. $700 billion is the chunk the top 2 percent would contribute if the Dems got their way, if that's the "small" amount you're referring to. So allowing ALL the tax cuts to expire is not trivial! I know you don't like Olbermann, but he had on David Stockman last night, Reagan's budget adviser of all people, and when HE is calling for the tax cuts to expire, the Republicans have moved so far to the right that even Reagan's policies are now left of center! Listen to Stockman! He's the architect of your GOD's policies for chrissakes!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/ ... /#40500189

Will Robinson wrote:When the rich get richer the people they employ to help them achieve wealth get paid. If you are so stupid as to oppose rich people getting richer as a blanket policy objective then you are in favor of continuously increasing unemployment ratios.

Absolute bull poop! All during the 8 years of Bush and the 6 years of Republican reign, all we did was LOSE jobs, all under those very cherished tax cuts! The Dems may have been accomplices, but the Repubs were in charge. All those 'rich' did was gamble away our money on credit default swaps and derivatives or on leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers and mergers of good companies (which usually resulted in job losses and the destruction or foreign sourcing of said companies). They certainly did NOT start very many new meaningful businesses with all that money in their hot little hands during those 8 years OR create new jobs! It was all for MORE MONEY! And they're whining for MORE! The pay disparity between the top and bottom wage earners is at an all time high! Don't these pigs have enough?

BUSH was the one who bailed out the banks with OUR tax dollars and WE got the screw job in return, all while holding the specter of a depression over our heads to get what they wanted! I still don't see these pig bastards loaning much money to small businesses or for home mortgages right now. All those nice banks and credit card companies we bailed out are now nickle and diming us to death with new fees for this and that, all the while demanding an almost zero prime rate for themselves, then charging us usury rates for loans and giving precious little in return for our meager savings accounts.

And the biggie, BUSH was the one who has essentially bankrupted the U.S. when he started 2 off-the-books, unfunded wars AND gave us the LARGEST government mandate in history, Medicare Part D, a giveaway to private enterprise!

TC, those wars weren't completely unpaid for... they stole Social Securities massive surplus to help fund it, then pretend it's suddenly in the red and we can't have it anymore.

.

I hate democrats and republicans alike, but I love to tell it like it is.

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring \"America speaks with one voice.\"
Advertisement

\"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council,\" Bush said in a statement. \"Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must.\"

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

Calling it \"Bush's War\" is false and disingenuous. It's an American War, fully supported by a majority vote of the house and senate.

Calling it an \"American War\" is just as disingenuous as it implies that the American people supported it.

And you also have to remember the anthrax attacks targeting the Senate and the House, the propaganda about the \"War On Terror,\" the incredible amount of disinformation swirling around at the time, the outright lies about weapons of mass destruction, and the nonsense about Iraq backing al-Qaeda (القاعدة‎, for those of you who are pedants about romanisation of Arabic spelling), among other things influencing that vote.

.

Hmm, that sounds like a huge conspiracy theory Bee. So Bush and 6 of cronies deceived all of Congress and the whole of the American people, just so they could go to war against Iraq? Sounds a little far-fetched to me. It would have taken a lot more than just 7 people to accomplish that.

flip wrote:Hmm, that sounds like a huge conspiracy theory Bee. So Bush and 6 of cronies deceived all of Congress and the whole of the American people, just so they could go to war against Iraq? Sounds a little far-fetched to me. It would have taken a lot more than just 7 people to accomplish that.

flip wrote:Hmm, that sounds like a huge conspiracy theory Bee. So Bush and 6 of cronies deceived all of Congress and the whole of the American people, just so they could go to war against Iraq? Sounds a little far-fetched to me. It would have taken a lot more than just 7 people to accomplish that.

Why not? War presidents have more clout and power and usually carry a more favorable public opinion, although in Bush's case, the shine quickly wore off his manufactured wars. That's the problem, war is a 2 edged sword. When a war is going great, the president is cherished and has high public opinion. When things don't go as planned, like Nixon discovered with Vietnam, public opinion sours on you pretty quickly. Obama is starting to get a taste of that now.

After 911, why Iraq? Bush could have put all our military's resources in play, actually have nabbed Bin Laden as a prize (we were close), paraded him around as a trophy and he could have come off as a national hero. But instead he farmed out that important detail to a bunch of greedy warlords who took our payment money and let Osama go free. Bush's heart just wasn't into Afghanistan the way he used our troops there. He had his eye on another prize.

What he REALLY wanted was to finish his daddy's war in Iraq. Of the other 2 main players, Cheney wanted Haliburton to get all the juicy war contracts and make scads of money and Rumsfeld wanted to try out his lean and mean ideas about a smaller and more efficient military. A perfect storm of opportunity. 911 gave them the convenient excuse and cover. Now a real conspiracy would be to claim that Bush/Cheney knew about the 911 attacks beforehand.

Heh. I'm not going to admit my previous post was somewhat, eh \"misleading\". Sure it's possible and as far as I can tell, starting somewhat quickly after the invasion of Iraq, the hunt for Qsama Bin Laden all but vanished and became a much more generic hunt for \"Al Qaeda\". Which is actually not even a distinct group in itself, but just list of known terrorist from various organizations. But, as I've heard Lothar point out before, let's not sidestep the fact that Obama has proven to be just a continuation of Bush's policies and the only thing separating them is the color of their skin. I wish everyone would realize that the true power structure of this country and the major decision makers never changes, they just swap out henchmen every 4-8 years.

Mjolnir wrote:TC, those wars weren't completely unpaid for... they stole Social Securities massive surplus to help fund it, then pretend it's suddenly in the red and we can't have it anymore.

That would be the same social security program that both party's in congress admitted was completely without funds before Bush became president?!? Somehow it magically became not only funded but actually somehow had a "massive surplus" which implies there really was a separate fund (which there was not just check Al Gore's campaign notes on the stupid "lock box" promise) and then subsequently the funds were squandered and the books switched back to erase any sign of there having been a separate fund....

Hmmm, Hey TC if your DNC Kool-Aid pitcher is missing check Mjolnir's refrigerator because he is swimming in the stuff to come up with that rewrite of reality!!

to the best of my knowledge SS funds were always put into the govt. general fund and not into a seperate \"lock box\" acct. So for all the years that more SS money was being paid in than was being paid to recipients, the excess money was being spent on other agendas. Now that the baby boom generation, who paid the bulk of SS, is now retiring...we have certain people here trying to manipulate reality and lay the blame on their favorite boogyman.

The next thing to keep a eye on are the unfunded pension accts. certain states like CA and NY have. Could be in excess of 3 TRILLION dollars and guess where these states will turn to when they cannot pay.
This is one scenario where the vampire unions will suck us all dry.