World Politics

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry. Please point out where this argument was about Holder or what is going on in NY. For the record, IMO this presidency is just a continuation of the previous in regards to civil rights, just not quite so pubilicly blatant about it. Now they look even weaker by backing down on the NY thing.

"Trust" the DOJ or an appointed servant of it? lol, you really are confused. Checks and balances that are in place for the very reason we should not trust the government.

I think this whole constitution thing is a joke to you. You don't even know what it means.

Well, one of us has actually read it.

 

[ravens]

So you are saying the Obama fiscal 2011 budget DID NOT CONTAIN 1.56 TRILLION IN RED INK.

Any bets as to weather this congress will pass his budget largely unfettered?

BTW, what was to prevent Clinton from vetoing welfare reform a 3rd time? Answer? NOTHING. ZIP. ZILCH. NUT-IN.

My point is that it isn't 'the president's' deficit. It gets attributed to the Congress. If it's a $1.56T deficit then that should be attributed to Congress. But he also proposes a budget, and that budget proposed today had a $1.3+ T deficit (and it included tax revenues for programs that don't even exist, like cap and trade, so the deficit is likely to balloon from there. )

Clinton (who is an A-hole) also understood political reality which is why he is the only two term democrat since FDR. He wasn't going to veto welfare reform because he knew where the country stood. He also $hitcanned govt run health-care because that's what cost him control of congress after 30-40 year dem control.

 

[ChrisE]

Well, one of us has actually read it.

And it is obviously not you. I call you out directly because what most of your ilk are promoting, ie the govt. should not be trusted, flies in the face when you are scared of the bad guys. I'm not sure why you cowards are so scared of these guys to give up what has been fought for.

I know you won't read the following because it was not on Drudge but in case you have time in between picking your navel:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html

 

[ravens]

I liked this part from that article in your signature:

Here is what you quoted from the article: Americans who thought that it is one thing to offer an initial hand to the likes of McCain or Boehner think it something quite different to continue to offer it after the hand has been flagrantly rejected. To persist is to invite dishonor, both for the office of the president and for the nation.

Here is a larger quote which contains the context:

In what measure has Barack Obama as president embraced this other role of leader of Humanity? Americans are now wondering. These concerns first came to light in unsympathetic reactions to Obama’s foreign policy speeches, especially those delivered on foreign soil, that made a point of apologizing for American missteps and wrongs. Realists and pragmatists dismissed these criticisms, arguing that the new approach served America’s interests by lowering the strident tone of the Bush years, thereby opening doors to engagement with other leaders and defusing anti-Americanism. In addition, it was said that Obama could leverage his position as a leader of humanity to help solve general problems like nuclear proliferation and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama’s two offices complemented one another, promoting the goals of Humanity while serving America’s interest. By standing above or outside America, he could best help America.

Whatever the plausibility of these arguments, their merit over the past year has been tested and found wanting. Obama’s authority as leader of Humanity has not borne the fruit that many had hoped for, and in any case—as his two trips to Copenhagen have made clear—his standing in the world is now in a free fall. Americans who thought that it is one thing to offer an initial hand to the likes of a Chávez or an Ahmadinejad think it something quite different to continue to offer it after the hand has been flagrantly rejected. To persist is to invite dishonor, both for the office of the president and for the nation. Realism dictates an adjustment. The fact that such a change has been so slow in coming suggests that it is not realism that is Obama’s guiding light, but a commitment to the dogmas of the Religion of Humanity.

Clearly, you are rather desperate. So desperate that you would purposely rewrite the quote to place Boehner's and McCain's names in the place of Chavez' and Ahmedinejad's names. Isn't that interesting that the left would see American politicians whose ideology opposes their own to be the moral equal of them.

It makes my point that the left/progressives see those who want to destroy America (terrorists) as like-minded in their goals if not their methods.

Cyclingnews is lucky to have you as one of its forum moderators. You're a joke!

 

[ChrisE]

It makes my point that the left/progressives see those who want to destroy America (terrorists) as like-minded in their goals if not their methods.

Yes, we all want to destroy America. Why don't you do something about that? If I knew people wanted to destroy America I would act. I disagree with you but I don't think you want to destroy America. You just take advantage of the right to be stupid. Nothing wrong with that.

Attack, keyboard warrior!

 

[Bala Verde]

Here is what you quoted from the article: Americans who thought that it is one thing to offer an initial hand to the likes of McCain or Boehner think it something quite different to continue to offer it after the hand has been flagrantly rejected. To persist is to invite dishonor, both for the office of the president and for the nation.

[text text text]

It makes my point that the left/progressives see those who want to destroy America (terrorists) as like-minded in their goals if not their methods.

Cyclingnews is lucky to have you as one of its forum moderators. You're a joke!

Didn't you find it interesting that my quote -replacing two names for two others - still made sense in the current US political landscape. The same logic applies as in the article, but that might be too hard to understand... You could not have been more wrong, but read again. (I really wonder how you got through that article in the first place, because it was heavy on the philosophical jargon; positive science, metaphysics...)

Let me explain: I didn't compare McCain and Boehner with terrorists , I merely applied the same logic as suggested by the author of the article.

Every time the president extends a hand to the GOP, it gets turned down. So according to the realist reasoning of the author of the article, this realism which dictates adjustment, suggests that if you don't want to get into trouble (politically), at one point you just ought to ignore it and push your own agenda. Be a realist, not an idealist.

It would even be stupid for him to continue being an idealist, the idealist he has been with regard to bipartisan politics.

Great advise for Obama, handed to him, by your signature.

Besides, isn't your reaction also slightly overblown, given that your avatar portrays Obama as the Joker (who was a metaphor for anarchy and terrorism while taking delight in killing).

 

[patricknd]

Yes, we all want to destroy America. Why don't you do something about that? If I knew people wanted to destroy America I would act. I disagree with you but I don't think you want to destroy America. You just take advantage of the right to be stupid. Nothing wrong with that.

Attack, keyboard warrior!

what in the hell kind of commie are you? don't you know rights are for americans? if we lock 'em up in gitmo indefinitely without trials it's better than they deserve. so what if some of 'em get released after 3 or 4 years when we finally realize our mistake. at least they had a roof over their head and some good ole waterboardin fun, which is better than you and your kind deserve.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

what in the hell kind of commie are you? don't you know rights are for americans? if we lock 'em up in gitmo indefinitely without trials it's better than they deserve. so what if some of 'em get released after 3 or 4 years when we finally realize our mistake. at least they had a roof over their head and some good ole waterboardin fun, which is better than you and your kind deserve.

If you support locking up alleged terrorists without a trial you are more like a commie.

You know that in Stalinist USSR that all you had to do was tell your local party official that your neighbor was a "kulak" (or similar), and if enough people didn't like that person/family, they would be taken off to a gulag. And unless the victims were prominent, there was unlikely to be even a show-trial.

Seems similar to what you and your ilk are advocating. Many of these people were picked up in sweeps, or dobbed in by neighbors. There are thousands of them in various detention centers, what's you're proof that they're all terrorists?

If they are so obviously guilty then a trial should be fairly quick, right? And if they are not guilty, then they should be freed.

Why do you trust your govt to do the correct thing behind closed doors, when there is little accountability?

 

[ChrisE]

Easy. Patrick is being sarcastic.

 

[patricknd]

If you support locking up alleged terrorists without a trial you are more like a commie.

You know that in Stalinist USSR that all you had to do was tell your local party official that your neighbor was a "kulak" (or similar), and if enough people didn't like that person/family, they would be taken off to a gulag. And unless the victims were prominent, there was unlikely to be even a show-trial.

Seems similar to what you and your ilk are advocating. Many of these people were picked up in sweeps, or dobbed in by neighbors. There are thousands of them in various detention centers, what's you're proof that they're all terrorists?

If they are so obviously guilty then a trial should be fairly quick, right? And if they are not guilty, then they should be freed.

Why do you trust your govt to do the correct thing behind closed doors, when there is little accountability?

it's sarcasm man, try reading between the lines.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Refuting right-wing talking points

Not sure how blaming Bush helps.

Bush didn't run Fanny and Freddie. Community re-development was Clintons deal.

Bush was not an economic guru. He allowed waayyyy too much spending. But Obama has taken spending to new heights. It's scary.

No Bush didn't run Freddie and Fannie. They were run by boards made up of Wall St types. And the credit rating agencies, also privately run, gave Freddie+Fannie bundled mortgages, contain sub-prime loans, triple-A ratings. Additionally, Greenspan, and then Bernanke, also kept the Fed rate far too low, causing a bubble.

But Bush failed to respond to prevent such obviously dangerous practices. (Just like he failed to read his security memos.) The result was hyper-inflation in the housing market, and the subsequent crash.

The fallout from the crash caused tax-receipts to fall, accounting for most of the deficits that Obama now has.

And if Obama slashed back a trillion worth of spending, then there would be millions more jobless since even less money would be being spent within the economy. This would cause tax revenues to fall even further, requiring more spending cuts...

Attacking Obama's deficits only shows petty partisanship or ignorance. Obama has failed in many ways but the deficits are largely out of his control, unless his (your) desire is to destroy the country by slashing spending.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

it's sarcasm man, try reading between the lines.

Oops, sorry man. Plenty of people actually espouse what you wrote, it's kinda scary.

 

[patricknd]

no sweat. Sometimes I'm not so sure either.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

no sweat. Sometimes I'm not so sure either.

Your post was obviously sarcasm but I only skim read it the 1st time. Kinda obvious after I re-read it. I gotta be less excitable. It probably didn't help that I was annoyed at all the obvious trolling by people like Ravens.

 

[Anonymous]

You seem long on complaints but short on constructive suggestions.
If you were president what would you do to fix the huge mess that Bush left in his wake.
Hint: It's not Let the rich keep all their money so they can trickle it down on the masses beneath them. That already didn't work.

I would do what worked in the Reagan and Clinton administrations without as much spending. I would run the govt more similar to how you run your bike shop (I do realize that's an oversimplification). I would cater to small business needs (job creators) over concerns of labor unions (job killers).

Heath Insurance reform (as an example);

Allow insurers to provide products to folks in all 50 states. Encourage insurers to offer a wide variety of products and available options (similar to the way auto insurance is structured). Expand HSA's. Lots can be done without spending a nickel in Federal money and certainly without creating yet another entitlement that is unaffordable. Tort-reform.

Whatever happened to Pay-Go? Obama brought the term back to the public debate... sooooo what happened?

Shrink the size of the completely bloated Federal Govt.

When was the last time federal spending was at our even near the rate of inflation? This is the time-value of money in reverse.

I literally could be here all day but my approach has little to do with looking to the govt as the saviour and that is wholly rejected by most of those on this thread. So I'm wasting my breath (keyboard... time... whatever).

Besides, your guys are in control. So instead of complaining about the situation, this administration needs to get their ideas into action. The loyal opposition can't stop them.

 

[Anonymous]

No Bush didn't run Freddie and Fannie. They were run by boards made up of Wall St types. And the credit rating agencies, also privately run, gave Freddie+Fannie bundled mortgages, contain sub-prime loans, triple-A ratings. Additionally, Greenspan, and then Bernanke, also kept the Fed rate far too low, causing a bubble.

But Bush failed to respond to prevent such obviously dangerous practices. (Just like he failed to read his security memos.) The result was hyper-inflation in the housing market, and the subsequent crash.
The fallout from the crash caused tax-receipts to fall, accounting for most of the deficits that Obama now has.And if Obama slashed back a trillion worth of spending, then there would be millions more jobless since even less money would be being spent within the economy. This would cause tax revenues to fall even further, requiring more spending cuts...

Attacking Obama's deficits only shows petty partisanship or ignorance. Obama has failed in many ways but the deficits are largely out of his control, unless his (your) desire is to destroy the country by slashing spending.

Liberal talking points in bold.

Don't know where to start in RED.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Liberal talking points in bold.

Don't know where to start in RED.

OK Scott, what's your wish-list of a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts? The military budget is about 700 billion? Cut that eh, then you're at 70% of the target?

But don't soldiers (and any other govt employees) spend money in the private sector? Won't cutting back $1 trillion cause the private sector to lose $1 trillion from govt employees? And then those in the private sector will have less to spend in the private sector, causing even further reductions?

Yup.

So won't that cause the economy to shrink further?

Yup.

Easy few steps of logic, huh?

 

[Anonymous]

And it is obviously not you. I call you out directly because what most of your ilk are promoting, ie the govt. should not be trusted, flies in the face when you are scared of the bad guys. I'm not sure why you cowards are so scared of these guys to give up what has been fought for.

I know you won't read the following because it was not on Drudge but in case you have time in between picking your navel:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html

Chris, you've changed my mind. This really is a criminal matter. BTW, can KSM stay at your house 'till his trial?

I'll help with the groceries.

 

[Anonymous]

OK Scott, what's your wish-list of a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts? The military budget is about 700 billion? Cut that eh, then you're at 70% of the target?

But don't soldiers (and any other govt employees) spend money in the private sector? Won't cutting back $1 trillion cause the private sector to lose $1 trillion from govt employees? And then those in the private sector will have less to spend in the private sector, causing even further reductions?

Yup.

So won't that cause the economy to shrink further?

Yup.

Easy few steps of logic, huh?

You got me. How'd you figure out the first thing I'd do is dis-band the military?

You're good.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

You got me. How'd you figure out the first thing I'd do is dis-band the military?

You're good.

It's the biggest ticket item so I used it for an example. Others are a bit smaller. (Though conservatives typically like generous military funding, it seems very dear to their hearts.)

Medicare is quite pricey, maybe just let all the sick, old people die, that'll save $400 billion.
Education (federal component) is about $80 billion?
NASA, $17.2 billion.
The National Endowment for the Arts is only like $155 million.

It's gonna be pretty tricky to trim a trillion dollars of fat from the budget. Most of it is in the budget since it is sort of useful.

 

[Anonymous]

It's the biggest ticket item so I used it for an example. Others are a bit smaller. (Though conservatives typically like generous military funding, it seems very dear to their hearts.)

Medicare is quite pricey, maybe just let all the sick, old people die, that'll save $400 billion.
Education (federal component) is about $80 billion?
NASA, $17.2 billion.
The National Endowment for the Arts is only like $155 million.

It's gonna be pretty tricky to trim a trillion dollars of fat from the budget. Most of it is in the budget since it is sort of useful.

Yes. There is no possible way to cut spending. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Anonymous]

Gee, why didn't I think of this?

"For example, he remains convinced that Congress should never have spent the bailout money it has dished out so far, which he puts “at about $3 trillion. “We should have done nothing. I was pretty much alone in that position near the end of 2008,” he told me.

“If you total what the government takes in the income tax, corporate tax, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, all of that adds up to $2.2 trillion in tax receipts and they spent $3.5 trillion,” he said.

Instead of the massive bailouts, stimulus and other giveaway programs, Laffer says, “I would have had a federal tax holiday. No taxes of any sort for a year and nine months which comes out to $3.5 trillion.

“Can you imagine what would have happened to the economy. We’d have an unemployment rate of three percent and the economy would be growing like mad and we’d be way out of this problem,” he said.

This will never happen as it takes all power away from the politicians.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35341

 

[Hugh Januss]

Liberal talking points in bold.

Don't know where to start in RED.

Those bolded items are facts, you can call them whatever you want.

I would do what worked in the Reagan and Clinton administrations without as much spending. I would run the govt more similar to how you run your bike shop (I do realize that's an oversimplification). I would cater to small business needs (job creators) over concerns of labor unions (job killers).

If my bike shop was in the condition that our country is in the first thing I would need to do would be to get a loan to pay my staff and get some merchandise. What you are advocating would be akin to laying off all my good workers and sitting there waiting for a customer to come in and buy the one bike I have left in stock and hope that that pays the fixed costs.

Nolimbs may not know satire, but the rest of what he had to say was right on IMO.

 

[ChrisE]

Chris, you've changed my mind. This really is a criminal matter. BTW, can KSM stay at your house 'till his trial?

I'll help with the groceries.

Project much? Nobody is saying that. Typical emotional diversionary tactic.

It's ok to admit this Constitution/Democracy thing is confusing to you. No need to throw outlandish statements out there to divert the topic. We can move on to something else if you like.

 

[craig1985]

Oh goody, on top of his trip to Indonesia, Obama will be coming to Australia to meet his mate Kevin Rudd. It should also be noted that it is federal election year in Australia. Hope BroDeal warns him about the dangerous Australian wildlife.