An Intransigent President

[P@triot]

That's a little different though. At the time, Bush was out of control spending money on a war he started in Iraq. Why should we raise the debt ceiling just so we can spend even more money over there?

Obama is doing his best to try to get out of those stupid wars which is the real money spender and actually trying to help the people of this country. Besides, we wouldn't even need to raise the debt ceiling if taxes were where they should be.

Sorry, spending money on national security makes a lot more sense than spending money on Communism/Socialism like Barack Hussein is doing. And you can't explain away his comments. He clearly stated that asking to raise the debt limit was a sign of the govenrment's inability to spend and budget properly and leadership failure. Those are his own words. He is nothing more than a lowly community organizer and he thinks like a lowly community organizer, which is why this nation is collapsing while he is in the White House.

This is surprising. No one had a problem when George Walker was spending money on Fascist/Theocratic programs. This failed drunken driving corporatist (Who took money from public programs to enrich himself when he "ran" businesses) caused a national econmic collapse almost single handely and failed to capture one of the worst and most vile terrorists ever to attack this country. And utterly failed. He did this while destroying a nation that didn't attack us in 9/11 (or at all) and left us will the bill.

Is this the way conservatives operate? By electing people that were convicted of crimes to the Presidency? Do they think that low of the office? George Walker was the first man ever convicted of anything to occupy the office.

You need to look up the term Fascist - because that describes the Dumbocrat Party. Not GWB. Stopping a vicious, oppressive dictator who poses a threat to the entire world is not facism my uninformed friend. It's called national security. Facism is oppresing others and implementing a single party. You know, exactly what liberals do. It's liberals who are tyring to get Fox News off of tv. It's liberals who are tyring to get Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh off the air. Because liberals are fascists who don't want the truth to be told because it exposes their Communist/Socialist/Nazist agenda. Take by force, silence anyone who disagrees, piss all of the US Consitution. That's the liberal slogan.

 

[WillowTree]

The politicians most responsible for America's debt crisis are portrayed by the media as "grown-ups" while those least responsible for it are dubbed "intransigent." Veteran profligate spenders have been credited in recent days with a "balanced approach" to the crisis, even as Tea Partiers in Congress with no fingerprints on the debt have been cast as recklessly indifferent to it.

The mainstream media exclusively defines "intransigence" as conservative opposition to non-negotiable liberal demands. Hence, President Obama 's willingness to risk default rather than drop his insistence on tax increases isn't considered intransigent and reckless but principled and mature.

The American Spectator : An Intransigent President

So when D's do cuts at a rate of $3 for every $1 they are asking for in cuts, they somehow become equal (in your mind) to being just as bad as the R's because they don't whimper and fold when the R's retain their "party of No" title?

Are you aware that most Americans get that the Tea Party and R's are at fault in this debacle, and your lot has merrily thrown away 2012 with both hands?

Most dimcrat Americans.. i get that. T EA P ARTY the ones who actually pay the taxes.. they say they're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY you say they're not.. izzzz you a leech?

 

[WillowTree]

Just because a liberal/communist/socialist appointed court "rules" something is constitutional, doesn't actualy make it constitutional. That's like saying OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are innocent just because a jury didn't find them guilty. They still committed the murders, they just got away with it because they had a jury that wanted them to get away with it. And Social Security is 100% unconstitutional - it just was ruled by communists who wanted the government to get away with it. Obamacare is 100% unconstitutional as well, but a few liberal/communist/socialist idiot judges have ruled it "constitutional" because they want Obama to get away with this.

1. learn terms and definitions. you're supremely ignorant and using terms interchangeably which do not mean the same thing.
2. if the high court says it's constitutional, it is... lower courts are just that... lower courts. that's what there are avenues for appeal.
3. oj and casey anthony were never found innocent, ijit... they were found 'not guilty'. perhaps that means the same thing in your narrow little mind... but not to most people.sucks being you.

Never found innocent? Yet they are afforded all the constitutional protections of innocent?? Yeah baby you tell us..

 

[Sallow]

You are completely inaccurate on your constitutional statements. I encourage you to read the document before commenting on it. "General welfare" does not mean providing food, housing, and healthcare to individuals. General welfare means things like the billions the federal government gave to the city of NY to clean up the horrific disaster left by the 9/11 attacks. The city could not afford the clean up and leaving that would have crippled the US (it is the financial hub of the entire nation). You take GENERAL and conveniently interpret that is individual. The 9/11 clean up did not go to individuals, it went to the city to "provide for the general welfare". The Social programs are simply unconstitutional. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers, and that is not one of them. What is sad is that it would be perfectly constitutional if the states did it - but greedy liberals want to get their hands on everyone's money, not just the money of people in their own state.

Social Security is constitutional; it was ruled to be constitutional in the 1930's.

Just because a liberal/communist/socialist appointed court "rules" something is constitutional, doesn't actualy make it constitutional. That's like saying OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are innocent just because a jury didn't find them guilty. They still committed the murders, they just got away with it because they had a jury that wanted them to get away with it. And Social Security is 100% unconstitutional - it just was ruled by communists who wanted the government to get away with it. Obamacare is 100% unconstitutional as well, but a few liberal/communist/socialist idiot judges have ruled it "constitutional" because they want Obama to get away with this.

You've yet to show any specific prohibitions in the United States Constitution.

 

[BDBoop]

The mainstream media exclusively defines "intransigence" as conservative opposition to non-negotiable liberal demands. Hence, President Obama 's willingness to risk default rather than drop his insistence on tax increases isn't considered intransigent and reckless but principled and mature.

The American Spectator : An Intransigent President

Are you aware that most Americans get that the Tea Party and R's are at fault in this debacle, and your lot has merrily thrown away 2012 with both hands?

No, we don't get it because it's utter bullshit... just like Barry's claim that 80% of Americans want their taxes raised. It's all a lie.

I'll need a link to your allegation of the president's claim.

 

[Sallow]

Sorry, spending money on national security makes a lot more sense than spending money on Communism/Socialism like Barack Hussein is doing. And you can't explain away his comments. He clearly stated that asking to raise the debt limit was a sign of the govenrment's inability to spend and budget properly and leadership failure. Those are his own words. He is nothing more than a lowly community organizer and he thinks like a lowly community organizer, which is why this nation is collapsing while he is in the White House.

This is surprising. No one had a problem when George Walker was spending money on Fascist/Theocratic programs. This failed drunken driving corporatist (Who took money from public programs to enrich himself when he "ran" businesses) caused a national econmic collapse almost single handely and failed to capture one of the worst and most vile terrorists ever to attack this country. And utterly failed. He did this while destroying a nation that didn't attack us in 9/11 (or at all) and left us will the bill.

Is this the way conservatives operate? By electing people that were convicted of crimes to the Presidency? Do they think that low of the office? George Walker was the first man ever convicted of anything to occupy the office.

You need to look up the term Fascist - because that describes the Dumbocrat Party. Not GWB. Stopping a vicious, oppressive dictator who poses a threat to the entire world is not facism my uninformed friend. It's called national security. Facism is oppresing others and implementing a single party. You know, exactly what liberals do. It's liberals who are tyring to get Fox News off of tv. It's liberals who are tyring to get Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh off the air. Because liberals are fascists who don't want the truth to be told because it exposes their Communist/Socialist/Nazist agenda. Take by force, silence anyone who disagrees, piss all of the US Consitution. That's the liberal slogan.

You need to look up the term yourself. It refers to Socialism for the rich. It describes the Republican party perfectly..my uninformed friend.

Nazis killed socialists, communists and jews by the way. They were the Facist Arm of Christianity. Even Pope John Paul recognized that in his "apology".

And you never answered my question about why conservatives think that the office of the President so low..that they elected a Theocratic Fascist like George Walker into the office.

 

[BDBoop]

Most dimcrat Americans.. i get that. T EA P ARTY the ones who actually pay the taxes.. they say they're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY you say they're not.. izzzz you a leech?

Most assuredly not. But I CAN see what you are, and thus begins my new ignore list.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They very thing that government is suppose to be doing. Defense.
Not Social Programs. All of the social programs are the ones that are costing to much.

Yep.

Defense.

Explain to me how invading almost every nation in the world is defense? With a few possible exceptions, WWII and Afghanistan come to mind..I can't think of many military actions that this country participated in..as aiding to the Defense of the Homeland. Can you?

And there NOTHING in the constitution that prohibits spending on social programs.

In fact..the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE covers it.

You are completely inaccurate on your constitutional statements. I encourage you to read the document before commenting on it. "General welfare" does not mean providing food, housing, and healthcare to individuals. General welfare means things like the billions the federal government gave to the city of NY to clean up the horrific disaster left by the 9/11 attacks. The city could not afford the clean up and leaving that would have crippled the US (it is the financial hub of the entire nation). You take GENERAL and conveniently interpret that is individual. The 9/11 clean up did not go to individuals, it went to the city to "provide for the general welfare". The Social programs are simply unconstitutional. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers, and that is not one of them. What is sad is that it would be perfectly constitutional if the states did it - but greedy liberals want to get their hands on everyone's money, not just the money of people in their own state.

You have no idea what the founders meant by "General Welfare"; parroting right wing propaganda does not make a credible argument. Taking false premises and concluding "Social programs are simply unconstitutional" is an opinion based on the opinion of others.

Language evolves, and words have different definitions at different times. Do some research and try to determine what the word "welfare" meant in the 18th C. and consider who wrote the preamble and how some other than the obvious partisans and propagandists might define it today, consider:

"The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Governor Morris"

Constitutional Topic: The Preamble - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

From the same source: Promote the Genereal Welfare:

"This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that."

 

[WillowTree]

Most dimcrat Americans.. i get that. T EA P ARTY the ones who actually pay the taxes.. they say they're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY you say they're not.. izzzz you a leech?

Most assuredly not. But I CAN see what you are, and thus begins my new ignore list.

chicken shit.

 

[Sallow]

Are you aware that most Americans get that the Tea Party and R's are at fault in this debacle, and your lot has merrily thrown away 2012 with both hands?

No, we don't get it because it's utter bullshit... just like Barry's claim that 80% of Americans want their taxes raised. It's all a lie.

I'll need a link to your allegation of the president's claim.

I think it's more like 60% of the people see that the wealthy need to contribute more.

 

[Sallow]

Yep.

Defense.

Explain to me how invading almost every nation in the world is defense? With a few possible exceptions, WWII and Afghanistan come to mind..I can't think of many military actions that this country participated in..as aiding to the Defense of the Homeland. Can you?

And there NOTHING in the constitution that prohibits spending on social programs.

In fact..the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE covers it.

You are completely inaccurate on your constitutional statements. I encourage you to read the document before commenting on it. "General welfare" does not mean providing food, housing, and healthcare to individuals. General welfare means things like the billions the federal government gave to the city of NY to clean up the horrific disaster left by the 9/11 attacks. The city could not afford the clean up and leaving that would have crippled the US (it is the financial hub of the entire nation). You take GENERAL and conveniently interpret that is individual. The 9/11 clean up did not go to individuals, it went to the city to "provide for the general welfare". The Social programs are simply unconstitutional. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers, and that is not one of them. What is sad is that it would be perfectly constitutional if the states did it - but greedy liberals want to get their hands on everyone's money, not just the money of people in their own state.

You have no idea what the founders meant by "General Welfare"; parroting right wing propaganda does not make a credible argument. Taking false premises and concluding "Social programs are simply unconstitutional" is an opinion based on the opinion of others.

Language evolves, and words have different definitions at different times. Do some research and try to determine what the word "welfare" meant in the 18th C. and consider who wrote the preamble and how some other than the obvious partisans and propagandists might define it today, consider:

"The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Governor Morris"

Constitutional Topic: The Preamble - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

From the same source: Promote the Genereal Welfare:

"This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that."

He's not even touching my challenge to show Constitutional prohibitions on General Welfare, even though I "double dog dared" him.

Rottweiller indeed.

But at least he's polite. Thus far.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Are you aware that most Americans get that the Tea Party and R's are at fault in this debacle, and your lot has merrily thrown away 2012 with both hands?

No, we don't get it because it's utter bullshit... just like Barry's claim that 80% of Americans want their taxes raised. It's all a lie.

I'll need a link to your allegation of the president's claim.

Sure...

President Obama Claims 80% of Americans Want Higher Taxes | CountingPips | Forex Blog | Currency Trading News

Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal - TheHill.com

Obama Claims 80% Of Americans Want Higher Taxes - Newstalk 870 KFLD: The Mid Columbia's Newstalk Leader

And in case you can't read.. here's the video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nAf1onXtE&feature=player_embedded]‪Obama "80% Of The American People Want Higher Taxes" ... LOL Obama has gone full retard‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Most dimcrat Americans.. i get that. T EA P ARTY the ones who actually pay the taxes.. they say they're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY you say they're not.. izzzz you a leech?

Most assuredly not. But I CAN see what you are, and thus begins my new ignore list.

chicken shit.

Well a broken clock is right twice a day.



Ignoring people is chickenshit.

 

[Sallow]

No, we don't get it because it's utter bullshit... just like Barry's claim that 80% of Americans want their taxes raised. It's all a lie.

I'll need a link to your allegation of the president's claim.

Sure...

President Obama Claims 80% of Americans Want Higher Taxes | CountingPips | Forex Blog | Currency Trading News

Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal - TheHill.com

Obama Claims 80% Of Americans Want Higher Taxes - Newstalk 870 KFLD: The Mid Columbia's Newstalk Leader

And in case you can't read.. here's the video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nAf1onXtE&feature=player_embedded]‪Obama "80% Of The American People Want Higher Taxes" ... LOL Obama has gone full retard‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Did you see the video?

80% of the people endorse a balanced approach.

80% of the people endorse an approach that includes cuts and revenues.

Gosh.

The way you guys twist words.

By the way..the Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent.

 

[jillian]

Did you see the video?

80% of the people endorse a balanced approach.

80% of the people endorse an approach that includes cuts and revenues.

Gosh.

The way you guys twist words.

By the way..the Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent.

you know he didn't watch the video... he only read the title.

 

[jillian]

He's not even touching my challenge to show Constitutional prohibitions on General Welfare, even though I "double dog dared" him.

Rottweiller indeed.

But at least he's polite. Thus far.

have you ever met a rightwingnut who doesn't pick and choose what parts of the constitution they like?

guns ... good...

general welfare... bad... so must be ignored...

is he polite? well, that's something....

 

[peach174]

No..the military is by far the most expensive.

Lots of spending is "secret" and if Veteran's entitlements would be added..it would be off the charts. That's why benefits are kept out of the scoring.

No, if you add all the social programs they are the most expensive.
You add Pensions,Health Care and Welfare,they are by far the most expensive.
Once again, that is what our constitution says that government is suppose to be doing. Defense and veteran entitlements.

Then why aren't veteran entitlements scored as military spending? Eh?

When you add all of defense and veterans entitlements it comes to 1.415 trillion dollars.
When you add all of the Social programs it comes to 2.154 trillion dollars.
We are suppose to have benefits for our veterans. Ever since this nation started we had retirement pay for our veterans .
It is the social programs that are costing us way to much.

 

[BDBoop]

He's not even touching my challenge to show Constitutional prohibitions on General Welfare, even though I "double dog dared" him.

Rottweiller indeed.

But at least he's polite. Thus far.

have you ever met a rightwingnut who doesn't pick and choose what parts of the constitution they like?

guns ... good...

general welfare... bad... so must be ignored...

is he polite? well, that's something....

No surprise, since they do the same thing with the Bible. "Sell all you have and give the proceeds to the poor?" That cannot POSSIBLY mean what it says!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, we don't get it because it's utter bullshit... just like Barry's claim that 80% of Americans want their taxes raised. It's all a lie.

I'll need a link to your allegation of the president's claim.

I think it's more like 60% of the people see that the wealthy need to contribute more.

I think most Americans would look down on a person or persons who, when stranded in a lifeboat, hoarded food and water from others. Most Americans would share, most human beings would share.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's absolutely incorrect.

In fact the republicans are opposing 400 billion in spending cuts to the military.

The most expensive component to the government.

Wait, so you claim the military takes more federal budget than Medicare and other entitlements?