U.S. Politics

Page 361 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BroDeal said:
That is not very reassuring. The historic high was because of WW2, which left the rest of the world smashed and the U.S. the preeminent industrial power. Until the 70s, the debt steadily declined, aided by the U.S.' economic position relative to the rest of the world and its own internal economic growth. That was a completely different global economic situation than exists today.
Fine, show me where any major industrialized nation on the planet has successfully implemented an austerity program that worked in turning around a major recession. Just one. Not two. One.

EDIT: Somolia doesn't count...neither does Reagan's era because he cut revenue by 1% of GDP and increased spending by 2% of GDP which qualifies today as "socialism" these days...:rolleyes:
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Fine, show me where any major industrialized nation on the planet has successfully implemented an austerity program that worked in turning around a major recession. Just one. Not two. One.

EDIT: Somolia doesn't count...neither does Reagan's era because he cut revenue by 1% of GDP and increased spending by 2% of GDP which qualifies today as "socialism" these days...:rolleyes:
I am not the one advocating reducing spending during a recession. That is job of Republicans who cheered on Bush during the good times when he should have been paying down the debt in preparation for the spending that should be done during the bad times.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BroDeal said:
I am not the one advocating reducing spending during a recession. That is job of Republicans who cheered on Bush during the good times when he should have been paying down the debt in preparation for the spending that should be done during the bad times.
No disagreement there.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
"This administration has so many Muslim brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America."

-- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), in an interview with WND Radio, explaining what he sees as President Obama's downplaying of the threat of radical Islam.
And Rs wonder why the American people think they're party has gone insane.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/04/26/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

And Americans wonder why the rest of the world think's the country has gone insane.

The pink bulletproof rucksack that 5-year-old Jaliyah wears to school every day reaches almost down to her knees and weighs 3lbs even when empty, but for her Colorado father, the size and solidity are part of the attraction.

"If you put it on her back, it almost covers her whole body," explains Demitric Boykin. "It was a very hard conversation to have but she knows that it's something that will keep her safe."

Lined with ballistic material that can stop a 9mm bullet travelling at 400 metres per second, the backpack is only one of a clutch of new products making their way into US schools in the wake of Newtown school massacre. As gun control legislation grinds to halt in Washington, a growing number of parents and teachers are taking matters into their own hands.

The Denver company that supplied Jaliyah's rucksack, Elite Sterling Security, has sold over 300 in the last two months and received inquiries from some 2,000 families across the US. It is also in discussion with more than a dozen schools in Colorado about equipping them with ballistic safety vests, a scaled-down version of military uniforms designed to hang in classroom cupboards for children to wear in an emergency.

Barry Tull, headteacher of Worcester Preparatory School in rural Maryland, has 80 ballistic shields deployed in his classrooms disguised as whiteboards and clipboards. Some teachers use them to assign homework, others lean them up against the wall, but most of Worcester's middle and high-school children know what they are for.
The new American educational system: learn how to read, write, add, and how to dodge bullets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/26/us-bulletproof-uniforms-gun-control
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
BroDeal said:
That is job of Republicans who cheered on Bush during the good times when he should have been paying down the debt in preparation for the spending that should be done during the bad times.
Yep. And they were far, far worse than most of us probably even remember. For eg, I totally forgot about the unfunded Medicare prescription drug bill that Ryan, Boehner, Cantor etc all voted for.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

"The most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s" - former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker.
"added $15.5 trillion in present value terms to our nation's indebtedness according to Medicare trustees" because, unlike Obamacare, the Rs weren't then demanding offsetting spending cuts. It was just straight deficit spending. Not surprising that the right (or Scott) never mentions that one. Jennifer Rubin went there just the other day, though.

Rubin praises Bush for enacting the “fiscally sober” Medicare prescription drug benefit, unlike the “exorbitant program like Obamacare.” She seems genuinely unaware that Bush financed his benefit entirely through deficit spending, while Obama had to pay for Obamacare by finding spending cuts and higher taxes. She praises Bush’s program as “popular” and Obama’s as “unpopular,” which is true, largely because Obama had to do the unpopular thing of paying for the benefits he created while Bush did not.
The voting breakdown in the House and Senate was ~200 Rs in favor - including the "deficit hawks" like Ryan and Cantor - and ~15 Ds.

So how the **** did it get through?
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group.
Oh.

And yet, to borrow Scott's favorite term, the low-info voters still think the Republican Party is the party of "fiscal responsibility".:rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Responding to highly publicized flight delays from the "sequestration" budget cuts, the House and Senate have voted overwhelmingly to allow the Transportation Department to shift some airport infrastructure funding to pay air traffic controllers. To be sure, delays in air travel inconvenience travelers and harm the economy. But many other sequestration-related cuts that receive much less attention are far more damaging.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-parrott/congress-addresses-flight_b_3164709.html

Marvelous, isn't it? The lightning speed with which they managed to act about something that actually affects all of them, all the time. All that other sh!t, the stuff that results in more deprivation for the poorest, nah....
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
And Americans wonder why the rest of the world think's the country has gone insane.

The pink bulletproof rucksack that 5-year-old Jaliyah wears to school every day reaches almost down to her knees and weighs 3lbs even when empty, but for her Colorado father, the size and solidity are part of the attraction.

"If you put it on her back, it almost covers her whole body," explains Demitric Boykin. "It was a very hard conversation to have but she knows that it's something that will keep her safe."
No, people just think loons like this are insane. Does Demitic Boykin force his little girl to wear a helmet while walking on the sidewalk? Maybe he could get her one of those blow-up sumo wrestler outfits to protect her from falls. Oops, that might not work. She could trip and roll down a hill. Maybe he could attach outriggers on the suit to prevent her from rolling.

One has to wonder how much work it took for The Guardian to find someone this paranoid. They could have come to me and I could have saved them a lot of time by pointing them toward a few members in this thread.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Thanks for the concession.

I guess it then makes total sense to go out and pass a whole bunch of new laws. Make people feel like 'something's' being done.

Cool.

Just so we are clear, I think universal background checks (with teeth) make complete sense. But, I have no confidence in our various govt agencies actually enforcing new laws particularly when the won't enforce existing laws.

So, it becomes clear what this whole round of BS is about and it ain't about protecting innocent kids. It's just more incredibly cynical politics designed to make opponents "look" bad. Period.
Nonsense. It's about the power of the gun lobby to protect its economic interests and politicians either too concerned about losing votes, irresolute, or else ideologically preconditioned to take the necessary measures.

From what I’ve read the majority of Americans are in favor of new laws restricting private access to firearms and, above all, certain types of weapons. Now is that really so incensed?

This is what happens though when ideology gets in the way of the faculty of reason. While if republicans think that the only motivation behind most democrats' conviction on this issue being to make them "look bad," then here is to be found a political cynicism that is so repugnant, in light of recent tragedies, that it doesn't even bear thinking about.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-parrott/congress-addresses-flight_b_3164709.html

Marvelous, isn't it? The lightning speed with which they managed to act about something that actually affects all of them, all the time. All that other sh!t, the stuff that results in more deprivation for the poorest, nah....
Disgusting isn't it. I can't believe that this doesn't draw more attention.

I was unable to watch your video link because any streaming video is blocked and most of the time I'm posting on the man's time....:cool:

Syria / Iran will be a mess for the USA in the future. This is just the fruits of previous administrations and current administrations failures to address the trouble between the USA foreign policy towards them.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Disgusting isn't it. I can't believe that this doesn't draw more attention.

I was unable to watch your video link because any streaming video is blocked and most of the time I'm posting on the man's time....:cool:

Syria / Iran will be a mess for the USA in the future. This is just the fruits of previous administrations and current administrations failures to address the trouble between the USA foreign policy towards them.
Colin Powell's quote about Iraq remains apposite now: "You break it, you buy it."

Syria isn't just about a people rising up against an unjust dictator. It's also a civil war with multiple contending factions. We remove the evil dictator (Assad, this time) and we don't get peace--we just get war between more contending factions.

I don't want the United States occupying Israel's northern neighbor for decades. It's a recipe certain to embroil the US in further conflict.
 
Feb 25, 2011
2,539
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-parrott/congress-addresses-flight_b_3164709.html

Marvelous, isn't it? The lightning speed with which they managed to act about something that actually affects all of them, all the time. All that other sh!t, the stuff that results in more deprivation for the poorest, nah....
it is disgusting, but... can i be selfish here and say that i am *so* relieved they did this?

i'm about to fly back to the states again and am very claustrophobic... that extra time in the plane on the tarmac (especially as they were going to lift the rule saying that passengers must be deplaned after 3 hours -- 4 hours for international flights) would be excruciating... i was seriously looking at flying in to Canada and driving down the rest of the way :eek:
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Hey, thanks for those 8 years of George and ****. Glad to see that now you think it might not have been such a good idea for the SC to be deciding elections. :rolleyes:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/justice-oconnor-maybe-bush-v-gore-was-mistake

Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says she has second thoughts on whether the Supreme Court should have accepted Bush v. Gore -- the deeply controversial case that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election.

"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," O'Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board last Friday. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"

In a 5-4 decision at the time, O'Connor voted with the four other Republican-appointed justices to shut down the recount in Florida, the decisive state in the election.

"Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision," the retired justice told the Tribune editorial board. "It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day."
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
Hey, thanks for those 8 years of George and ****. Glad to see that now you think it might not have been such a good idea for the SC to be deciding elections. :rolleyes:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/justice-oconnor-maybe-bush-v-gore-was-mistake
This continual Dem denial over the 2000 election is just stupid. Yeah, Bush was the second worst president in the nation's history, but someone had to win. Nine times out of ten the recount would have come up with Bush. If you want to blame someone then blame the idiots who could not figure out how to vote for the person they intended to vote for. That was a result of the Dem's poor ground game.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Still having a rough time with the 2000 election, huh?
Clearly Sandra Day O'Connor is.

You should probably thank the Supremes'. Gore would have been... uh, Gore.
Well, if the economy and deficits etc are really your primary concern, you should be mad as hell at the Supremes for appointing GW, eh?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Clearly Sandra Day O'Connor is.

Well, if the economy and deficits etc are really your primary concern, you should be mad as hell at the Supremes for appointing GW, eh?
Clearly Sandra Day O'Connor is
Clearly. Words used such as "Maybe" and "Probably" are real stem-winders. And what kind of grammar is this;

It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up.
She sounds a bit hillbillyish.

Debts and deficits? Who's the king? Yep. Mr. Obama.

By the way, how about that super duper democrat Terry McAuliffe. lol.

McAuliffe car co. parent in off-shore tax shelter

The parent company of a “green” car venture with ties to the Obama administration and Democratic Party leader Terry McAuliffe is incorporated in the tax shelter country of the British Virgin Islands, Watchdog has learned.

Yet just nine months ago McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee chairman and part owner of GreenTech Automotive Inc., blasted Mitt Romney over allegations the presidential candidate had an offshore bank account.

“You’re running for president,” McAuliffe told the Daily Caller. “People just don’t get that. I mean, why do you have an offshore bank account? So we’ve got a long way to go.”
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

http://watchdog.org/81836/mcauliffe-car-co-parent-in-off-shore-tax-shelter/
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
BroDeal said:
If you want to blame someone then blame the idiots who could not figure out how to vote for the person they intended to vote for. That was a result of the Dem's poor ground game.
Everyone knows that's bull, so I can only assume that you're trolling again.

During the November 2000 presidential election in Florida, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors and inadequate and unequal resources in the election process denied countless Floridians the right to vote. The disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly ten times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in Florida. On a statewide basis, while African Americans comprised about 11% of all voters in Florida in the November 2000 presidential election, African Americans cast about 54% of the ballots that were rejected in the election. Before and during the election state and county officials were aware of several key factors that ultimately contributed to the disenfranchisement of qualified voters.
The Commission's extensive analysis of statistical data reveals that African Americans were disproportionately purged from the voter roles due to spoiled ballots rendered by undercounts and overcounts. The failure to incorporate Motor Voter registrants and the notorious, state-sponsored, erroneous purging procedures significantly contributed to the dilution of the African American vote.

The Commission also found that the lack of uniformity and absence of clear guidance from top state officials in the allocation of election-day resources, including voter education funds and effective poll worker training contributed to the incidence of spoiled ballots.
So, who ran Florida in 2000?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Everyone knows that's bull, so I can only assume that you're trolling again.
Too dumb to fill out a ballot? It's the Republican's fault.

Maybe the Dems should have put a few resources into showing their people how to vote. The least they could have done was to teach their voters the difference between Gore and Buchanan.
 
According to the British Media Obama aka god invented the concept of self mockery at the white house correspondents dinner this week. What a legend of a President, cool enough to be able to poke fun even at himself. Why did no other president in history ever think of that.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Clearly. Words used such as "Maybe" and "Probably" are real stem-winders. And what kind of grammar is this;



She sounds a bit hillbillyish.
Maybe Reagan shouldn't have nominated her.

Debts and deficits? Who's the king? Yep. Mr. Obama.
Actually that would be Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

By the way, how about that super duper democrat Terry McAuliffe. lol.

McAuliffe car co. parent in off-shore tax shelter



Live by the sword, die by the sword.

http://watchdog.org/81836/mcauliffe-car-co-parent-in-off-shore-tax-shelter/
By the way, how about that super duper Republican Bob McDonnell, who many have tipped as a potential 2016 R presidential candidate?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ap-fbi-looks-into-mcdonnells-link-to-donor.php

Live by the sword, die by the sword.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Cuomo's out if Clinton is in for 2016. Though it is the NYPost so take it for what it's worth.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) won't run for president in 2016 if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton runs, sources have told the New York Post.

A "Cuomo administration insider with direct knowledge of the situation" told the Post that Cuomo believes if Clinton runs, she'll receive strong support, leaving him no path to the Democratic nomination.

“The governor has told people in recent weeks that there’s not a chance for him to run if Hillary gets in the race because she’ll easily wrap up the Democratic nomination," the insider said.

“He knows that and he accepts that, and so he won’t even be thinking at all in those terms — unless Hillary decides not to run, which seems unlikely," the insider added.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296651-report-cuomo-wont-run-in-2016-if-clinton-does
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY