Republicans : The party of NO answers

[wihosa]

Truth
Please don't confuse them with facts, just give them the fairytales like cutting taxes leads to more tax revenue, or deregulation will make the market better because things always work better when there are no rules, etc...

 

[Bern80]

Yes you made your point perfectly. You are just another on the right without any idea what to do about our problems. So, all you can do is say NO!

With nothing but anger about losing their power, Repubs have absolutely no answers except to say NO!

And the only thing the left knows how to do in terms of solving problems is throw money at it. If you don't consider preventing the government from spending ever increasing amounts of taxpayer money during a FUCKING RECESSION, there isn't much help for you.

Meanwhile President Obama will continue to lead, putting the good of the nation first.

Okay kool-aid boy. How is he doing that? God he even has you morons talking like him. Now everbody is talking but not realy saying anything.

 

[TENAC]

If the idiots in your party had had the good sense to say NO then AIG wouldn't have had permission to give bonus money now would they.???

yes, with moves like last week yer DUmb Dems will lead us right over the cliff. Lemming!

Wtree, if the govt had NOT gotten involved, AIG would have bankrupted then a bankruptcy judge would have come in and cancelled those contracts.

By the govt involving itself in the private market, guess who's on the hook? Dems think the govt is, because for some reason they cannot see you and I and every other American are being co signed onto this bail out mess.

So every Trillion obama spends, thats my and your Trillion.

How big is a Trillion?

Follow me here:

Equate ONE SECOND, with ONE Dollar.

How long ago was a MILLION SECONDS ago?
12 Days. Not too bad, I can get my hands around a million on those terms.

How long ago was a BILLION SECONDS ago?
33 Years. Still, I am well over 30, I can still get my hands around a billion.

How long ago was TRILLION SECONDS ago?
This one hurt me. I couldnt get my, your, nor any amount of arms around.

29 million years.......BC .

And obama is throwing around Trillions like we only have to print it.

You don't seem to realize you are preaching to the chior! Hello????

Oh yeah...I just like the harmony of the right........

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Republicans, true to form have nothing constructive to offer.

ROFLMNAO.. SWEET BASELESS CONJECTURE.

First you don't EVEN frame the conjecture with an ISSUE ... which is not only cowardly, but intellectually vacuous, to boot.

LOL... Leftists.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why does the stock market do better under Dems?

It doesn't.

The highest it ever was was under a GoPer, you idiot partisan douchebag.

Why do we spend less under Dems?

Record for spending, B Obama, DEMOCRAT.

Why do we regulate more under Dems?

Because Democrats are dumb as dirt.

You see your silly little patter about there is no differance is just falt out fucking wrong in light of the facts.

How does it feel to be made a total fool of?

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! THE HUMANITY! STAY DOWN TRUTH! FOR YOUR OWN SAKE.. PLAY DEAD!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Don't complain about your lack of a url (what ever that means)

You're so incredibly stupid, ignorant and lazy it's beyond belief. You have a fucking electronic library/dictionary/thesaurus/encyclopedia at your fucking FINGERTIPS, the collective knowledge of the entire WORLD, and cannot trouble yourself to GOOGLE UP terms and acronyms, events, and other shit you don't understand.

You would much rather instead make it obvious to everyone just how stupid, lazy, ignorant and befuddled you are. You're a perfect example of the mindless parrots, the little puppets out there, the fucking little yapping kickme mangy mongrel lapdog mutts who just regurgitate the little bullshit talking points you are spoon fed.

By the way, URL stands for Uniform Resource Locator and it is, you imbecile, the web address of internet sites and so forth. What you clicked on or typed into your fucking address bar on your fucking browser, to get here. Mindless fucking dolt.

Give your Mom her computer back, brainless child.

 

[jeffrockit]

Stock market rebounds almost 500 points today upon news of Obama rescue plan.

Seems the 'free treaders' like his ideas.

Too bad Repubs, looks like Obama is succeeding.

Hoping and trying for failure, not looking like a good strategy...

Why is it when the stock market was tanking for the last 6 or 8 weeks, the left said that you can't blame it on Obama (more like blame it on Bush). Now that it is up for all of 1 day, Obama is the cause. Consistency is not in the left's vocabulary.
Hoping and trying for failure Of Bad Policies...fixed it for you

 

[DiveCon]

Republicans, true to form have nothing constructive to offer. They are the sponsers of simple (minded) contradiction, having no answers (except their failed theories) they are now the party of NO!

What have they got to offer but unbalanced tax cuts, irresponsible deregulation and demonizing segments of the American population?

no shit moron
what the fuck else can they be
where were your fucking tears when the dems played the party of NO for 8 fucking years?

go cry me a fucking river asshole

 

[mash107]

Republicans, true to form have nothing constructive to offer. They are the sponsers of simple (minded) contradiction, having no answers (except their failed theories) they are now the party of NO!

What have they got to offer but unbalanced tax cuts, irresponsible deregulation and demonizing segments of the American population?

1- They didn't deregulate enough, apparently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, coupled with easy credit, still created a huge housing bubble. You don't need 73,000 pages of regulations to govern an economy, which is an oxymoron unto itself. It's just like saying we need 73,000 pages to govern free speech.
2- The thing Republicans of the last 8 years did wrong was foolishly go to war and spend us halfway to bankruptcy. I'm glad we've elected an administration that plans to save what's left of our wealth. Oh wait, $3,500,000,000,000 deficit the first year. Banana republic here we come!
3- Demonizing segments of the population? Like... Barney Frank saying "who cares?" when the lives of AIG workers were threatened. Scapegoating freedom and capitalism for our ills rather than government.

Not doing anything is much better than spending us into bankruptcy.

Better yet, lowering spending significantly and cutting taxes and would help tremendously.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

2- The thing Republicans of the last 8 years did wrong was foolishly go to war

Again, you're not correct. It couldn't have happened without Dem support. And in fact, it was Dems who made it the law of our land to remove Saddam. And it was Dems, who for a decade insisted Saddam had WMDs:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

And there are literally dozens of other such examples. But you get the drift.

And as far as it being a mistake? Hardly... We are now in control of the center of the chessboard which is the middle East. A ruthless mass murderer has been nicely done away with. IslamoNazis are on their heels everywhere. And it's only just started.

 

[eots]

Republicans, true to form have nothing constructive to offer. They are the sponsers of simple (minded) contradiction, having no answers (except their failed theories) they are now the party of NO!

What have they got to offer but unbalanced tax cuts, irresponsible deregulation and demonizing segments of the American population?

thats funny...you think there are 2 partys....lol


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfEuSNejejY]YouTube - Alex Jones in Waking Life[/ame]

 

[wihosa]

Don't complain about your lack of a url (what ever that means)

You're so incredibly stupid, ignorant and lazy it's beyond belief. You have a fucking electronic library/dictionary/thesaurus/encyclopedia at your fucking FINGERTIPS, the collective knowledge of the entire WORLD, and cannot trouble yourself to GOOGLE UP terms and acronyms, events, and other shit you don't understand.

You would much rather instead make it obvious to everyone just how stupid, lazy, ignorant and befuddled you are. You're a perfect example of the mindless parrots, the little puppets out there, the fucking little yapping kickme mangy mongrel lapdog mutts who just regurgitate the little bullshit talking points you are spoon fed.

By the way, URL stands for Uniform Resource Locator and it is, you imbecile, the web address of internet sites and so forth. What you clicked on or typed into your fucking address bar on your fucking browser, to get here. Mindless fucking dolt.

Give your Mom her computer back, brainless child.

Your insults aside, thanks for informing me as to the meaning of url, that will greatly improve my ability to understand your policy proposals by, er, uh, well OK I guess I'm just to lazy to understand how knowing what that acronim is has to do with Repubs offering a constructive suggestion to the problems they created.

Oh that's right it doesn't have anything to do with this thread, it's just a diversion and a chance for you to heap insults on your political opponents. You've learned your lessons well from Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.

By the way, my Mom is 84 years old and wouldn't know what to do with a computer. Since I run my construction business full time I rarely have time to sit at the computer and so I don't do as much research as I would like, thanks again for informing me about what url means.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Don't complain about your lack of a url (what ever that means)

You're so incredibly stupid, ignorant and lazy it's beyond belief. You have a fucking electronic library/dictionary/thesaurus/encyclopedia at your fucking FINGERTIPS, the collective knowledge of the entire WORLD, and cannot trouble yourself to GOOGLE UP terms and acronyms, events, and other shit you don't understand.

You would much rather instead make it obvious to everyone just how stupid, lazy, ignorant and befuddled you are. You're a perfect example of the mindless parrots, the little puppets out there, the fucking little yapping kickme mangy mongrel lapdog mutts who just regurgitate the little bullshit talking points you are spoon fed.

By the way, URL stands for Uniform Resource Locator and it is, you imbecile, the web address of internet sites and so forth. What you clicked on or typed into your fucking address bar on your fucking browser, to get here. Mindless fucking dolt.

Give your Mom her computer back, brainless child.

Your insults aside, thanks for informing me as to the meaning of url, that will greatly improve my ability to understand your policy proposals by, er, uh, well OK I guess I'm just to lazy to understand how knowing what that acronim is has to do with Repubs offering a constructive suggestion to the problems they created.

Oh that's right it doesn't have anything to do with this thread, it's just a diversion and a chance for you to heap insults on your political opponents. You've learned your lessons well from Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.

By the way, my Mom is 84 years old and wouldn't know what to do with a computer. Since I run my construction business full time I rarely have time to sit at the computer and so I don't do as much research as I would like, thanks again for informing me about what url means.

 

[wihosa]

2- The thing Republicans of the last 8 years did wrong was foolishly go to war

Again, you're not correct. It couldn't have happened without Dem support. And in fact, it was Dems who made it the law of our land to remove Saddam. And it was Dems, who for a decade insisted Saddam had WMDs:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

And there are literally dozens of other such examples. But you get the drift.

And as far as it being a mistake? Hardly... We are now in control of the center of the chessboard which is the middle East. A ruthless mass murderer has been nicely done away with. IslamoNazis are on their heels everywhere. And it's only just started.

And there you have if folks!

The Repubs had absolutely nothing to do with STARTING A WAR!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest never taked about WMD and mushroom clouds.
Why if it hadn't been for all those Democrats on TV everyday scaring the public about Saddam Hussein we never would have invaded Iraq.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

 

[wihosa]

Midnight
Cat got your tounge?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

And there you have if folks!

The Repubs had absolutely nothing to do with STARTING A WAR!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest never taked about WMD and mushroom clouds.
Why if it hadn't been for all those Democrats on TV everyday scaring the public about Saddam Hussein we never would have invaded Iraq.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

More dishonesty, since no one ever asserted any such thing.

Partisan hacks like you wear blinders purposely, and/or are simply dishonest. But you know that.

 

[wihosa]

And there you have if folks!

The Repubs had absolutely nothing to do with STARTING A WAR!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest never taked about WMD and mushroom clouds.
Why if it hadn't been for all those Democrats on TV everyday scaring the public about Saddam Hussein we never would have invaded Iraq.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

More dishonesty, since no one ever asserted any such thing.

Partisan hacks like you wear blinders purposely, and/or are simply dishonest. But you know that.

Let's not pretend that it was the Dems who wanted this war. Yes many went along with it because Bush and Co. were hammering them politcally, questioning their patiotism and such. But it was the Repubs who wanted this war, Bush and his gang were out there every day scaring and lying the public into war.

By the way, is it un-patriotic, at a time of war (yes, it is still a time of war) to hope for the failure of our President, who by the way is the Commander in Chief?

Just wondering...

 

[DiveCon]

And there you have if folks!

The Repubs had absolutely nothing to do with STARTING A WAR!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest never taked about WMD and mushroom clouds.
Why if it hadn't been for all those Democrats on TV everyday scaring the public about Saddam Hussein we never would have invaded Iraq.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

More dishonesty, since no one ever asserted any such thing.

Partisan hacks like you wear blinders purposely, and/or are simply dishonest. But you know that.

Let's not pretend that it was the Dems who wanted this war. Yes many went along with it because Bush and Co. were hammering them politcally, questioning their patiotism and such. But it was the Repubs who wanted this war, Bush and his gang were out there every day scaring and lying the public into war.

By the way, is it un-patriotic, at a time of war (yes, it is still a time of war) to hope for the failure of our President, who by the way is the Commander in Chief?

Just wondering...

you have a very poor memory
there were dems that wanted it
they voted for it

 

[wihosa]

Midnight
No answer?

 

[slackjawed]

Your masters are very pleased with you. While you engage in partisan bickering, you won't notice what is happening behind the curtain.
The best way to control a population is to divide it.