McConnell: No real deficit deal until Obama is gone

[Rinata]

it was your choice to interpret what they meant the way you interpreted it.
I intertpreted the "we want him to fail" as saying exactly what I felt....
"we do not want his policies to be successful as it will change the face of America as we see it...and as conservatives, we do not want the face of America changed"

And I guess you seem to forget the rhetoric of the left during the Bush years:

He cherry picked intel
He liedThe war is lost
he is a war monger
he was involved in planning 9-11

Not to mention the more recent rhetoric such as:

"die quickly"
"dont care about anyone but the wealthy"
Sorry.....I like your approach, but I do not agree with your sentiments about politics. Unlike you, I see right through the rhetoric....and I expect it from both sides of the aisle...hear it from both sides of the aisle...and ignore it from both sides of the aisle.

What I bolded is true. Bush did lie. He lied in his state of the union address about aluminium tubing being used for centrifuges. The CIA distinctly told him not to include that..and he did it anyway. And he did cherry pick intel. He was showing pictures of bases and installations that existed prior to the first American invasion of Iraq. After the invasion, Iraq was devastated and in no condition to attack anyone.

And the "die quickly" thing? You just have to take a look at Republican Governor Jan Brewer and her defunding of 2 procedures that killed two people. And it's obvious that conservatives are only concerned for the wealthy. They have no trouble funneling tax payer money to the private sector if it increases wealth..and cutting taxes on the wealthy.

I give up with you.
You are naive and way too easily fooled by rhetoric.
You take rhetoric as fact.
Only the politically immature take rhetoric as fact.
Sorry...I choose to no longer debate you. It is a waste of time.

Oh, sure. Good coverup!!! You're getting your ass kicked, that's why you don't want to continue. Chicken!!!!

 

[Mustang]

Unfortunately he's probably right. The disagreements are too big. This President and the Democrats want to make it all about scapegoating Taxpayers. But anyone with common sense understands that it's not about the Taxpayers. The Taxpayers didn't spend us into this $14 Trillion Debt Hell. The Taxpayers sent their money in as required by Law. It was the Politicians who spent the money. The Democrats should actually be ashamed of themselves for trying to blame Taxpayers for their mess. We don't have a Taxpayer problem. We have a Government problem. Hopefully people will show they understand this in 2012. It's time for real change. And real Conservatism is the change we desperately need. So make it happen America.

Frankly, over time, I've grown tired of conservative operators like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and their penchant to frame issues in such a way as to confuse the issues as opposed to shed light on them. But they were good at what they did, and once the tactics were set, others kept ringing that same bell until the political talk from the right sounded like Vatican City on a Sunday morning.

The truth is that Republicans have been outclassed (and usually "outbrained") by men like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I suggest that Republicans think long and hard before allowing the gov't to possibly default since Obama is ON THE RECORD as being willing to compromise while Republicans are ON THE RECORD as NOT being willing to compromise. Who do you think the American public is going to blame?

 

[Jarhead]

What I bolded is true. Bush did lie. He lied in his state of the union address about aluminium tubing being used for centrifuges. The CIA distinctly told him not to include that..and he did it anyway. And he did cherry pick intel. He was showing pictures of bases and installations that existed prior to the first American invasion of Iraq. After the invasion, Iraq was devastated and in no condition to attack anyone.

And the "die quickly" thing? You just have to take a look at Republican Governor Jan Brewer and her defunding of 2 procedures that killed two people. And it's obvious that conservatives are only concerned for the wealthy. They have no trouble funneling tax payer money to the private sector if it increases wealth..and cutting taxes on the wealthy.

I give up with you.
You are naive and way too easily fooled by rhetoric.
You take rhetoric as fact.
Only the politically immature take rhetoric as fact.
Sorry...I choose to no longer debate you. It is a waste of time.

Oh, sure. Good coverup!!! You're getting your ass kicked, that's why you don't want to continue. Chicken!!!!


View attachment 14081

lol.
You are a child...and obviously too fucking lazy to read.
Go away. You have no place here with the big boys.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The president offered 4 trillion dollars worth of cuts.

He offered the larger cuts to entitlements than any president in history.

(Larger than ANYTHING proposed by Reagan)

(Much larger than anything proposed by Bush)

(The GOP leadership is insane. They don't care about the budget (which was evident under Bush). They only care about fighting Obama. If Obama agrees to spending cuts, they don't want 'em)

Why don't you provide concrete numbers for those cuts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

President Obama currently has medicaid, medicare, and social security cuts on the table. Meanwhile, the GOP won't even close tax loopholes or cut the defense budget. And you think they want to do meaningful cuts?

He does not.

What he put on the table, and the Democrats actually rejected out of hand, was a plan to change the way benefits are tied to the cost of living. This is actually a common sense adjustment that should have been done years ago, but the Democrats are unwilling to put common sense and the country ahead of playing politics. Maybe if we had a real president in office he could control his own party.

Why exactly is a chained CPI "common sense" for seniors?

See what I mean?

If you know the term you know why it makes sense, yet you reject it out of hand, even though seniors will still get increases in benefits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just more proof from the GnOP that they care nothing for this country and only care about themselves. Anything to win...from running fake Democrats to sinking America's economy.

You may not recognize it....but most if not ALL politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle have their priorities in this order:

1) political career
2) Party
3) what is best for the country

To think it is only one party that has their priorities in that order is nothing more than partisanship in my eyes.

Likewise....I dont think any elected official on either side of the aisle is a "nutbar", an "idiot", "stupid" or a "whacko"......they are all well educated, intelligent. articulate individuals.

Many are ideologues...but it is our choice to vote them in.

They just lie about what their priorities are.

Sorry, but the "two sides" aren't the same no matter how many times right leaning "independents" try to say they are. There are no statements similar to those made by RWers coming from the left. No one on the left said that their only goal was making Bush a one term President.

When you have President Obama saying "if this makes me a one term President, so be it" when trying to do right by the American people and the RW consistently saying they just want him to fail regardless of what it does to the country...the two sides aren't the same.

You are a fool if you believe that claptrap.

 

[Contumacious]

McConnell: No real deficit deal until Obama is gone - Political Hotsheet - CBS News".

Prior to 1930 the "conservatives' could claim that their "liberal" counterparts were responsible for the ever increasing debt.

That is no longer the case. Both parties waste huge amonts of money . Let their respective political parties pay the fucking debt.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe that the stalemate problem in Congress versus President Obama is traceable to the results of the last midterm election. In the House of Representatives, the first term moderate Democrats lost, to be replaced by doctrinaire Republicans. Ironically, the doctrinaire liberal Democrats held on to their Congressional seats. The electron therefore resulted in a greater proportion of doctrinaire representatives (in both political parties) and less moderate representatives that are willing to compromise.

Oh yes...I agree 100%.

We now have a large handful of far left and a large handful of far right.....and those that are more moderate are getting pressure from the far wings of their respective parties as those far wings have the wieght.

We are entering a very dangerous political time in our history.

Bear in mind...we saw Bush blasted for discussing moderate policies (such as amnesty) and we see Obama blasted for discussing moderate policies (such as extension of the Bush cuts).

There are two "far" left people in Congress I can think of, Kucinich and Saunders. Both those guys are pretty reasonable most of the time. Almost the entire GOP is far right wing radicals. Even the more "reasonable" ones..like Boehner, McCain and Snowe hold some pretty extreme positions.

Only two?

Over one-third of the Senate -- 35 senators, all of them Democrats -- have voted the Sanders line 90 percent of the time or more. Since that's more than twice the number we need to fill out Bachus's list, let's restrict membership in the "Sanders Socialist Society" to just those senators voting with him at least 95 percent of the time. They number 15: Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio), John Kerry (D., Mass.), Jack Reed (D., R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), Tom Harkin (D., Ia.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), Ben Cardin (D., Md.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Roland Burris (D., Ill.), and Ted Kaufman (D., Del.).

RealClearPolitics - Only 17? Plenty of Senators as Far Left as Bernie Sanders

I would, again, suggest you pay more attention.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

lol, yeah surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre

He seemed to have forgotten about the most prominant democratic politicians (Hillary for example) claiming that Bush cherry picked intel so he can send 4000 soldiers to their death.
Of course, such was siad to protect their own careers when they were criticized for voting for the war then being against it.

Naturally, if it were true, there would have been extensive hearings about a CiC lying to congress so he can play army.

But, alas, there werent.

That was completely correct.

President Bush committed a war crime. He's very lucky that the Democrats were spineless.

Take a good look people. This is the exact same guy that claimed that no one wanted Bush to be a one term president.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unfortunately he's probably right. The disagreements are too big. This President and the Democrats want to make it all about scapegoating Taxpayers. But anyone with common sense understands that it's not about the Taxpayers. The Taxpayers didn't spend us into this $14 Trillion Debt Hell. The Taxpayers sent their money in as required by Law. It was the Politicians who spent the money. The Democrats should actually be ashamed of themselves for trying to blame Taxpayers for their mess. We don't have a Taxpayer problem. We have a Government problem. Hopefully people will show they understand this in 2012. It's time for real change. And real Conservatism is the change we desperately need. So make it happen America.

Frankly, over time, I've grown tired of conservative operators like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and their penchant to frame issues in such a way as to confuse the issues as opposed to shed light on them. But they were good at what they did, and once the tactics were set, others kept ringing that same bell until the political talk from the right sounded like Vatican City on a Sunday morning.

The truth is that Republicans have been outclassed (and usually "outbrained") by men like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I suggest that Republicans think long and hard before allowing the gov't to possibly default since Obama is ON THE RECORD as being willing to compromise while Republicans are ON THE RECORD as NOT being willing to compromise. Who do you think the American public is going to blame?

Shame on them for framing the issues in a way that actually allows them to win arguments.

I have a suggestion, instead of attacking the people who you admit are better at convincing people than you are, why don't you try make some actual arguments that prove they are wrong?

 

[Mustang]

Unfortunately he's probably right. The disagreements are too big. This President and the Democrats want to make it all about scapegoating Taxpayers. But anyone with common sense understands that it's not about the Taxpayers. The Taxpayers didn't spend us into this $14 Trillion Debt Hell. The Taxpayers sent their money in as required by Law. It was the Politicians who spent the money. The Democrats should actually be ashamed of themselves for trying to blame Taxpayers for their mess. We don't have a Taxpayer problem. We have a Government problem. Hopefully people will show they understand this in 2012. It's time for real change. And real Conservatism is the change we desperately need. So make it happen America.

Frankly, over time, I've grown tired of conservative operators like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and their penchant to frame issues in such a way as to confuse the issues as opposed to shed light on them. But they were good at what they did, and once the tactics were set, others kept ringing that same bell until the political talk from the right sounded like Vatican City on a Sunday morning.

The truth is that Republicans have been outclassed (and usually "outbrained") by men like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I suggest that Republicans think long and hard before allowing the gov't to possibly default since Obama is ON THE RECORD as being willing to compromise while Republicans are ON THE RECORD as NOT being willing to compromise. Who do you think the American public is going to blame?

Shame on them for framing the issues in a way that actually allows them to win arguments.

I have a suggestion, instead of attacking the people who you admit are better at convincing people than you are, why don't you try make some actual arguments that prove they are wrong?

Lee Atwater was an amoral man. When he was dying of cancer in 90-91, he basically went on an apology tour to try to make amends for the people he had wronged over his political career. Rove is also amoral, but I wouldn't ever expect him to apologize for hatching the PR campaign that sold America on the false premis that Iraq was a "growing and gathering danger" to America.

They employed the machiavellian strategy of deception and duplicity. Maybe one can make that argument that the end justifies the means when 'the end' is a good or noble thing, but not if it's just about attaining power. And certainly not if 'the end' is a bad thing like 100s of 1,000s of dead people all for a lie about nonexistent WMDs.

The Republican Party has had too many men like that in positions of power of late. Gingrich was one. DeLay was one. They make a mockery of our ideals. Why don't you and other conservatives support the kind of leaders who actually have morals instead of just talking about everyone else's morals.

 

[Gadawg73]

I hear that Obama has offered trillions in cuts.
Then how come we still fund a grant to study how ants walk in California to the tune of 200K and we fund the arts to the tune of tens of millions?
Every damn Federal building has to spend a certain % of $$ per square foot on art. How come that is still in the budget?
How come Amtrak is still in the budget? And how come Pell grants and other give away programs are still in the budget? We are broke and can not afford to force taxpayers, many that can't afford to eat, to pay for the college costs of students.
I can name dozens ofother programs that are still there. Why are they not eliminated?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Frankly, over time, I've grown tired of conservative operators like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and their penchant to frame issues in such a way as to confuse the issues as opposed to shed light on them. But they were good at what they did, and once the tactics were set, others kept ringing that same bell until the political talk from the right sounded like Vatican City on a Sunday morning.

The truth is that Republicans have been outclassed (and usually "outbrained") by men like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I suggest that Republicans think long and hard before allowing the gov't to possibly default since Obama is ON THE RECORD as being willing to compromise while Republicans are ON THE RECORD as NOT being willing to compromise. Who do you think the American public is going to blame?

Shame on them for framing the issues in a way that actually allows them to win arguments.

I have a suggestion, instead of attacking the people who you admit are better at convincing people than you are, why don't you try make some actual arguments that prove they are wrong?

Lee Atwater was an amoral man. When he was dying of cancer in 90-91, he basically went on an apology tour to try to make amends for the people he had wronged over his political career. Rove is also amoral, but I wouldn't ever expect him to apologize for hatching the PR campaign that sold America on the false premis that Iraq was a "growing and gathering danger" to America.

They employed the machiavellian strategy of deception and duplicity. Maybe one can make that argument that the end justifies the means when 'the end' is a good or noble thing, but not if it's just about attaining power. And certainly not if 'the end' is a bad thing like 100s of 1,000s of dead people all for a lie about nonexistent WMDs.

The Republican Party has had too many men like that in positions of power of late. Gingrich was one. DeLay was one. They make a mockery of our ideals. Why don't you and other conservatives support the kind of leaders who actually have morals instead of just talking about everyone else's morals.

In other words, I can't argue facts so I will continue to point out that I do not like them.

 

[Mustang]

Shame on them for framing the issues in a way that actually allows them to win arguments.

I have a suggestion, instead of attacking the people who you admit are better at convincing people than you are, why don't you try make some actual arguments that prove they are wrong?

Lee Atwater was an amoral man. When he was dying of cancer in 90-91, he basically went on an apology tour to try to make amends for the people he had wronged over his political career. Rove is also amoral, but I wouldn't ever expect him to apologize for hatching the PR campaign that sold America on the false premis that Iraq was a "growing and gathering danger" to America.

They employed the machiavellian strategy of deception and duplicity. Maybe one can make that argument that the end justifies the means when 'the end' is a good or noble thing, but not if it's just about attaining power. And certainly not if 'the end' is a bad thing like 100s of 1,000s of dead people all for a lie about nonexistent WMDs.

The Republican Party has had too many men like that in positions of power of late. Gingrich was one. DeLay was one. They make a mockery of our ideals. Why don't you and other conservatives support the kind of leaders who actually have morals instead of just talking about everyone else's morals.

In other words, I can't argue facts so I will continue to point out that I do not like them.

Arguing the facts rarely seems to have an effect. However, I think it's instructive to point out the kind of leaders conservatives embrace. I mean, after ALL that talk about "principles," you guys hitch your wagons to leaders who have none. I just find that astonishing, not to mention hypocritical to the nth degree.

 

[8537]

So instead of starting us on a course to serious fiscal reform and save 4T now, McConnell would prefer to wait until 2017, after the debt has increased another 5T or so because he doesn't want to see taxes on private jets increased?

and this is what passes for "leadership" in the current Republican party?

 

[Too Tall]

The president offered 4 trillion dollars worth of cuts.

He offered the larger cuts to entitlements than any president in history.

(Larger than ANYTHING proposed by Reagan)

(Much larger than anything proposed by Bush)

(The GOP leadership is insane. They don't care about the budget (which was evident under Bush). They only care about fighting Obama. If Obama agrees to spending cuts, they don't want 'em)

Could you please provide a list of those cuts?

Didn't think so, and the $4 trillion offer I heard about included $1 trillion of tax increases.

 

[Too Tall]

lol, yeah surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre

He seemed to have forgotten about the most prominant democratic politicians (Hillary for example) claiming that Bush cherry picked intel so he can send 4000 soldiers to their death.
Of course, such was siad to protect their own careers when they were criticized for voting for the war then being against it.

Naturally, if it were true, there would have been extensive hearings about a CiC lying to congress so he can play army.

But, alas, there werent.

That was completely correct.

President Bush committed a war crime. He's very lucky that the Democrats were spineless.

How about this lie?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

This is what Hillary had to say in 2004.

The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq contradicts years of intelligence indicating Saddam had such weapons, which also was the conclusion of officials in the Clinton administration.

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote - CNN

Should we hang her fat ass as well?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Remember we are the "enemy" Or how about DHS Declaring most Americans (those that didn't vote for Obama) Terrorists Its been extremely clear that this Resident in the White House does not Speak for this Nation he speaks against the very fabric of it.

i dont know about that.....but he is not speaking to a hell of a lot of People when he addresses the Nation....

"leaders" are far and few between....so far this Century they are no where to be seen.......

 

[Mustang]

So instead of starting us on a course to serious fiscal reform and save 4T now, McConnell would prefer to wait until 2017, after the debt has increased another 5T or so because he doesn't want to see taxes on private jets increased?

and this is what passes for "leadership" in the current Republican party?

I think the Republican Party is basically at war with itself. Those tea party kooks are ideologues who just won't allow the leadership to cut a deal even if the GOP ends up getting the blame as a result. If the GOP membership can't agree with each other, nobody should expect them to come to an agreement with Democrats.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lee Atwater was an amoral man. When he was dying of cancer in 90-91, he basically went on an apology tour to try to make amends for the people he had wronged over his political career. Rove is also amoral, but I wouldn't ever expect him to apologize for hatching the PR campaign that sold America on the false premis that Iraq was a "growing and gathering danger" to America.

They employed the machiavellian strategy of deception and duplicity. Maybe one can make that argument that the end justifies the means when 'the end' is a good or noble thing, but not if it's just about attaining power. And certainly not if 'the end' is a bad thing like 100s of 1,000s of dead people all for a lie about nonexistent WMDs.

The Republican Party has had too many men like that in positions of power of late. Gingrich was one. DeLay was one. They make a mockery of our ideals. Why don't you and other conservatives support the kind of leaders who actually have morals instead of just talking about everyone else's morals.

In other words, I can't argue facts so I will continue to point out that I do not like them.

Arguing the facts rarely seems to have an effect. However, I think it's instructive to point out the kind of leaders conservatives embrace. I mean, after ALL that talk about "principles," you guys hitch your wagons to leaders who have none. I just find that astonishing, not to mention hypocritical to the nth degree.

Quite true, it is completely useless for you to try to argue facts when they all contradict everything you say.

I would also suggest you stop assuming you know enough about me to say where I hitch my wagon, or even if I have one to hitch.