Is Fear All the GOP Has Left?

[Political Junky]

msnbc.com Video Player

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont agree, they have lies and hate too

 

[Political Junky]

True

 

[Samson]

"Fear?"

"Party of "'No'?"

Seriously, if this is the only banter left to describe Republicans, then the Dems are in Deeper shit than I suspected.

Independents care about spending. Stop it, and you may get their votes.

Reverse it and you win elections.

 

[Cuyo]

"Fear?"

"Party of "'No'?"

Seriously, if this is the only banter left to describe Republicans, then the Dems are in Deeper shit than I suspected.

Independents care about spending. Stop it, and you may get their votes.

Reverse it and you win elections.

This has been a republican plot since Reagan. When in office spend spend spend, massive deficits, massive debt, never say a word about it. Then when the democrats get in office, "HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THE DEBT! REIGN IN SPENDING! BLOCK EVERYTHING! WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!"

If you look at the debts by president, ALL the massive debt increases have happened under republican presidencies. Reagan ran up more debt during his tenure than every president prior. Where was all this fiscal conservatism and soundbytes about the children's future back then? Or under Dubya for that matter?

PS Clinton's the only one who reversed it since Reagan... Then lost the White House to the ne'er-do-well son of a president who resumed the spending spree. Yes, the same one that's now being blamed on Clinton and Obama.

 

[Political Junky]

"Fear?"

"Party of "'No'?"

Seriously, if this is the only banter left to describe Republicans, then the Dems are in Deeper shit than I suspected.

Independents care about spending. Stop it, and you may get their votes.

Reverse it and you win elections.

This has been a republican plot since Reagan. When in office spend spend spend, massive deficits, massive debt, never say a word about it. Then when the democrats get in office, "HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THE DEBT! REIGN IN SPENDING! BLOCK EVERYTHING! WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!"

If you look at the debts by president, ALL the massive debt increases have happened under republican presidencies. Reagan ran up more debt during his tenure than every president prior. Where was all this fiscal conservatism and soundbytes about the children's future back then? Or under Dubya for that matter?

PS Clinton's the only one who reversed it since Reagan... Then lost the White House to the ne'er-do-well son of a president who resumed the spending spree. Yes, the same one that's now being blamed on Clinton and Obama.

You're absolutely correct.

 

[eagleseven]

The GOP doesn't need fear...it has Obama.

 

[Samson]

"Fear?"

"Party of "'No'?"

Seriously, if this is the only banter left to describe Republicans, then the Dems are in Deeper shit than I suspected.

Independents care about spending. Stop it, and you may get their votes.

Reverse it and you win elections.

This has been a republican plot since Reagan. When in office spend spend spend, massive deficits, massive debt, never say a word about it. Then when the democrats get in office, "HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THE DEBT! REIGN IN SPENDING! BLOCK EVERYTHING! WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!"

If you look at the debts by president, ALL the massive debt increases have happened under republican presidencies. Reagan ran up more debt during his tenure than every president prior. Where was all this fiscal conservatism and soundbytes about the children's future back then? Or under Dubya for that matter?

PS Clinton's the only one who reversed it since Reagan... Then lost the White House to the ne'er-do-well son of a president who resumed the spending spree. Yes, the same one that's now being blamed on Clinton and Obama.

Sadly, you miss the point. But, don't feel bad: So do many Democrats (although the numbers are declining every week).

Independents don't care which party has increased or decreased the debt.

They want SPENDING REDUCED.

Whichever party acomplishes this will receive their support.

Whichever party opposes it, will lose.

 

[Cuyo]

This has been a republican plot since Reagan. When in office spend spend spend, massive deficits, massive debt, never say a word about it. Then when the democrats get in office, "HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THE DEBT! REIGN IN SPENDING! BLOCK EVERYTHING! WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!"

If you look at the debts by president, ALL the massive debt increases have happened under republican presidencies. Reagan ran up more debt during his tenure than every president prior. Where was all this fiscal conservatism and soundbytes about the children's future back then? Or under Dubya for that matter?

PS Clinton's the only one who reversed it since Reagan... Then lost the White House to the ne'er-do-well son of a president who resumed the spending spree. Yes, the same one that's now being blamed on Clinton and Obama.

Sadly, you miss the point. But, don't feel bad: So do many Democrats (although the numbers are declining every week).

Independents don't care which party has increased or decreased the debt.

They want SPENDING REDUCED.

Whichever party acomplishes this will receive their support.

Whichever party opposes it, will lose.

I miss nothing, except maybe the bus now and then.

The sad thing is, I have to agree with you. Indies fail to realize that with the state of affairs when Obama took office, deficit spending was necessary, unavoidable, inevitable. No matter who won, they'd be running record deficits right now. There is no way around it, except to substantially cut military spending which no politician would dare propose, lest they be labelled an America-hating possible terrorist.

The only thing Obama has to gamble on is that the economy will improve enough due to policy and the business cycle that a balanced budget is possible within 3 years. Right now, and especially in this last year, I don't care what any of you say: A Balanced budget was not an option.

 

[Samson]

This has been a republican plot since Reagan. When in office spend spend spend, massive deficits, massive debt, never say a word about it. Then when the democrats get in office, "HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THE DEBT! REIGN IN SPENDING! BLOCK EVERYTHING! WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!"

If you look at the debts by president, ALL the massive debt increases have happened under republican presidencies. Reagan ran up more debt during his tenure than every president prior. Where was all this fiscal conservatism and soundbytes about the children's future back then? Or under Dubya for that matter?

PS Clinton's the only one who reversed it since Reagan... Then lost the White House to the ne'er-do-well son of a president who resumed the spending spree. Yes, the same one that's now being blamed on Clinton and Obama.

Sadly, you miss the point. But, don't feel bad: So do many Democrats (although the numbers are declining every week).

Independents don't care which party has increased or decreased the debt.

They want SPENDING REDUCED.

Whichever party acomplishes this will receive their support.

Whichever party opposes it, will lose.

I miss nothing, except maybe the bus now and then.

The sad thing is, I have to agree with you. Indies fail to realize .....

I'm pleased you wasted no time in proving my point.

If you agreed with me, then you wouldn't declare that "Indies fail to realize" anything.

Whether or not they "realize" anything is immaterial: This is what they KNOW;

1. The Federal Government is too expensive, and the size needs to be reduced.
2. "They" represent the majority: Not Republicans or Democrats.
3. They pay far too much, and receive far too little.

This is basically the "Tea-Party" that the mass media seems to have so much difficulty defining: Independent voters that have no Party Alliances.

 

[Oddball]

Does this one need to be moved to conspiracy land?

 

[Nonelitist]

msnbc.com Video Player

You libtards claim that people will die if this doesn't pass and you say we use fear?

hahaha

 

[namvet]

I refuse to watch that retarded aids infected bastard.

 

[Samson]

Does this one need to be moved to conspiracy land?

It is these Weighty Decisions for which you receive the Big Bucks, Dude.

(Well, that, and being able to make a decent magarita).

 

[Cuyo]

Sadly, you miss the point. But, don't feel bad: So do many Democrats (although the numbers are declining every week).

Independents don't care which party has increased or decreased the debt.

They want SPENDING REDUCED.

Whichever party acomplishes this will receive their support.

Whichever party opposes it, will lose.

I miss nothing, except maybe the bus now and then.

The sad thing is, I have to agree with you. Indies fail to realize .....

I'm pleased you wasted no time in proving my point.

If you agreed with me, then you wouldn't declare that "Indies fail to realize" anything.

Whether or not they "realize" anything is immaterial: This is what they KNOW;

1. The Federal Government is too expensive, and the size needs to be reduced.
2. "They" represent the majority: Not Republicans or Democrats.
3. They pay far too much, and receive far too little.

This is basically the "Tea-Party" that the mass media seems to have so much difficulty defining: Independent voters that have no Party Alliances.

I agreed that indies will vote out Obama if spending is not reigned in. I disagree with the logic they, and apparently you, use to arrive at that decision. It far from "Proves your point."

Independents and Libertarians fall into 1 of 2 categories: Closeted republicans or closeted Democrats. O'reilly and Maher both claim to be Libertarian. Are they really? Of course not. O'Reilly is a republican who wants big brother out of his life, and Maher's a democrat who wants to smoke pot. I happen to be a fan of both men, but I digress.

Tea Partyers are just governmental malcontents. They're basically just rabble-rousers who lack a platform.

Arguing that the government is too large and taxes are too high is a popular concept. It's hard to be against "cutting taxes" and "increasing freedom," and the lower information you have the easier it is to get on board with these broad platforms. When you start talking about really cutting government, you find people don't want to be without the things that government provides.

I think a big part of the problem is that people have lost touch with the fact that we are the government. When "The government does something for you," really it's just us doing things for ourselves and for each other. Most importantly, some things are done far more efficiently on a federal level; Mail, interstate highways, military, and imho, healthcare.

So please enlighten me. Where should we begin cutting? I mean real cutting, don't talk about some piss-ant project you want to do away with that costs each of us a dollar a year. I mean the real deal. #1 question: Where are you on the Pentagon?

 

[namvet]

that liberal trash needs a Lobotomy !!!!! NOW !!!!

 

[Rambunctious]

The question is not what the GOP has or doesn't have right now, it's what will the GOP have in November and the answer is the house and senate.

 

[namvet]

consider the source

 

[MarcATL]

I agreed that indies will vote out Obama if spending is not reigned in. I disagree with the logic they, and apparently you, use to arrive at that decision. It far from "Proves your point."

Independents and Libertarians fall into 1 of 2 categories: Closeted republicans or closeted Democrats. O'reilly and Maher both claim to be Libertarian. Are they really? Of course not. O'Reilly is a republican who wants big brother out of his life, and Maher's a democrat who wants to smoke pot. I happen to be a fan of both men, but I digress.

Tea Partyers are just governmental malcontents. They're basically just rabble-rousers who lack a platform.

Arguing that the government is too large and taxes are too high is a popular concept. It's hard to be against "cutting taxes" and "increasing freedom," and the lower information you have the easier it is to get on board with these broad platforms. When you start talking about really cutting government, you find people don't want to be without the things that government provides.

I think a big part of the problem is that people have lost touch with the fact that we are the government. When "The government does something for you," really it's just us doing things for ourselves and for each other. Most importantly, some things are done far more efficiently on a federal level; Mail, interstate highways, military, and imho, healthcare.

So please enlighten me. Where should we begin cutting? I mean real cutting, don't talk about some piss-ant project you want to do away with that costs each of us a dollar a year. I mean the real deal. #1 question: Where are you on the Pentagon?

 

[Sarah G]

that liberal trash needs a Lobotomy !!!!! NOW !!!!

This is proof that fear isn't all they have left. There's a lot of hate there too.