Christine O'Donnell criticized by former aides

[topspin]

A lot of liberals don't have a problem with the facist republican babykillers proposing massive gashing cuts to the offensive military as a starter to cutting spending.

Dude, you're baked...

Go sleep it off, asshole...

as many dems feel like that as republitards do about muslim socialist bullshit. You asshole

 

[Synthaholic]

Only ******* delusional liberoidal morons can maintain that President Obama somehow "rescued" our financial institutions. In his ******* Marxist way, he inserted GOVERNMENT improperly into the entire equation not just setting a terrible precedent but also costing us boat loads of money which leads us further down the road to the collapse of a capitalistic system.

You liberoidal ass-bites are really quite slow. You in particular. You don't appear to have any functioning brain cells.

And by the way, moron, folks don't rub synapses. Synapses are SPACES across which neurotransmitters must flow.

No, the TARP was under Bush/Paulson.

No. The FIRST TARP was under the Bush Administration, which has never been disputed. In fact, President Bush was roundly criticized for it by the right at the time.

But the rest of the MASSIVE and reckless and foolish and dangerous spending has taken place under President Obama.

And no President alone does this shit. Alone, none can. In BOTH cases, it was a ******* liberoidal DEMOCRAT Parody Congress that did the deed.

There has only been one TARP.

 

[saveliberty]

I really have no idea if O'Donnell is the best qualified for office or not. What I do know is I have no idea who is runnig against her and what that person's qualifications are. Presumably, this person has no good ones and that is why opponents are resorting to throwing negative comments about Mz. O'Donnell.

 

[Cal]

The Tea Party: the gift that keeps on giving!

Rubio agrees with you...

I'm sure Harry Reid and Chris Coons do as well..

 

[american chaos]

Laugh all you want--O'Donnel will become a Senator

Watch!

 

[saveliberty]

Former people who rarely give out accurate or helpful information:

1. Employees.
2. Ex-spouses.
3. Plaintiffs

 

[amrchaos]

Christine O'Donnell criticized by former aides - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

Kristin Murray, who left her position in the state party to serve as one of several campaign managers for O’Donnell during that race, said warning bells went off in June 2008 when the two were discussing cell phone plans.

"She told me that she thought Joe Biden tapped her phone line," she said.

Moore, who first decided to volunteer for O'Donnell after hearing about her at a meeting of college Republicans, said that at one point, O'Donnell talked to him about winning a lucrative television contract with CNN or Fox News Channel.

"I informed her that most media organizations prohibit their employees from running for office. She didn't seem to understand and was more interested in getting a contract," he recalled. "She was more concerned about getting a TV deal than winning office."

When aides told O'Donnell it was a bad idea and that the cash-poor campaign should conserve its resources for more practical items like signs and bumper stickers, Moore recalled, "She didn't take too kindly to that."

"It was an irresponsible idea," said David Keegan, who served as O'Donnell's financial officer. “And half the people in the street thought she was throwing condoms out of the truck.”

Man, between her and Angle, the Tea Party sure know how to pick em. Plenty of more comments after the jump.

You know--the scariest thing I know about O'Donnel is that
1)she dabbled in witchcraft
2)She is associated with the Tea Party
3)She has a "Sarah Palinesque" about her that can lead to a dangerous following among rightwingers!

I am rolling on my side, but I have yet to figure out why someone should not vote for her? What, are you a left wing prude? Put that joint down and get serious for once!

 

[Liability]

No, the TARP was under Bush/Paulson.

No. The FIRST TARP was under the Bush Administration, which has never been disputed. In fact, President Bush was roundly criticized for it by the right at the time.

But the rest of the MASSIVE and reckless and foolish and dangerous spending has taken place under President Obama.

And no President alone does this shit. Alone, none can. In BOTH cases, it was a ******* liberoidal DEMOCRAT Parody Congress that did the deed.

There has only been one TARP.

That is -- of course -- not quite true. In the first place, under the original TARP program, the SECOND massive set of expenditures required Congressional approval. So, while I concede it came under just the one ACT, it still required a SEPARATE Congressional authorization. And, at President Obama's repeated insistence, Congress did so: TARP: The Sequel - BusinessWeek

Secondly, President Obama DID propose a SECOND TARP Program (independent of the provisions of the First TARP program). Treasury Unveils Massive New Financial Stability Plan - FOXBusiness.com

 

[8537]

No. The FIRST TARP was under the Bush Administration, which has never been disputed. In fact, President Bush was roundly criticized for it by the right at the time.

But the rest of the MASSIVE and reckless and foolish and dangerous spending has taken place under President Obama.

And no President alone does this shit. Alone, none can. In BOTH cases, it was a ******* liberoidal DEMOCRAT Parody Congress that did the deed.

There has only been one TARP.

That is -- of course -- not quite true. In the first place, under the original TARP program, the SECOND massive set of expenditures required Congressional approval.

No, no it didn't. Once Treasury requested it, Congress had three days to STOP it or the cash would be allocated. The first TARP gave congressional approval to the second tranche.

 

[Liability]

There has only been one TARP.

That is -- of course -- not quite true. In the first place, under the original TARP program, the SECOND massive set of expenditures required Congressional approval.

No, no it didn't. Once Treasury requested it, Congress had three days to STOP it or the cash would be allocated. The first TARP gave congressional approval to the second tranche.

Wrong. Congress had to VOTE for the release of the monies. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/business/economy/16webstimulus.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=TARP&st=cse

 

[mal]

Liability 47
8537 35
Dick Tuck 18
geauxtohell 16
Dr.House 10
rightwinger 9
Synthaholic 9
WillowTree 8
Charles_Main 7
topspin 6
bigrebnc1775 6
The T 5
Toro 4
Modbert 4
Zander 3
tha malcontent 3
YoungLefty 2
del 2
Samson 2
Political Junky 2
saveliberty 2
CrusaderFrank 2
misteroboto 1
hortysir 1
amrchaos 1
american chaos 1
RetiredGySgt 1
boedicca 1
rdean 1
Jack Fate 1

---

Where the **** is ModSquirt?... He just Driveby-Flaming these days?...

And why does he Hate Women?... Does it have to do with the Lightness of his Loafers?



peace...

 

[Synthaholic]

No. The FIRST TARP was under the Bush Administration, which has never been disputed. In fact, President Bush was roundly criticized for it by the right at the time.

But the rest of the MASSIVE and reckless and foolish and dangerous spending has taken place under President Obama.

And no President alone does this shit. Alone, none can. In BOTH cases, it was a ******* liberoidal DEMOCRAT Parody Congress that did the deed.

There has only been one TARP.

That is -- of course -- not quite true. In the first place, under the original TARP program, the SECOND massive set of expenditures required Congressional approval. So, while I concede it came under just the one ACT, it still required a SEPARATE Congressional authorization. And, at President Obama's repeated insistence, Congress did so: TARP: The Sequel - BusinessWeek

I'm sorry, but the sub-title of the article clearly says:

"Now, the debate over how to spend the second $350 billion of the government rescue program. This time, distressed homeowners may get help"

That's not a second TARP, it's the second part of the only TARP, rammed through by Bush and Paulson.

Additionally, look at the date of the article: January 16, 2009. So "President" Obama did no such thing, as Bush was President.

 

[Synthaholic]

Liability 47
8537 35
Dick Tuck 18
geauxtohell 16
Dr.House 10
rightwinger 9
Synthaholic 9
WillowTree 8
Charles_Main 7
topspin 6
bigrebnc1775 6
The T 5
Toro 4
Modbert 4
Zander 3
tha malcontent 3
YoungLefty 2
del 2
Samson 2
Political Junky 2
saveliberty 2
CrusaderFrank 2
misteroboto 1
hortysir 1
amrchaos 1
american chaos 1
RetiredGySgt 1
boedicca 1
rdean 1
Jack Fate 1

---

Where the **** is ModSquirt?... He just Driveby-Flaming these days?...

And why does he Hate Women?... Does it have to do with the Lightness of his Loafers?



peace...

What are these numbers, why have you posted them, and I think I hear your mother calling you for dinner.

 

[Liability]

There has only been one TARP.

That is -- of course -- not quite true. In the first place, under the original TARP program, the SECOND massive set of expenditures required Congressional approval. So, while I concede it came under just the one ACT, it still required a SEPARATE Congressional authorization. And, at President Obama's repeated insistence, Congress did so: TARP: The Sequel - BusinessWeek

I'm sorry, but the sub-title of the article clearly says:

"Now, the debate over how to spend the second $350 billion of the government rescue program. This time, distressed homeowners may get help"

That's not a second TARP, it's the second part of the only TARP, rammed through by Bush and Paulson.

Additionally, look at the date of the article: January 16, 2009. So "President" Obama did no such thing, as Bush was President.

You ARE sorry.

And you are wrong.

As I already correctly noted, the fact that it got passed under TARP I does NOT mean that Congress didn't have to separately ACT again to authorize the expenditure of the additional funds. Congress DID have to so act.

And President OBama sure as hell DID push Congress to authorize that second portion of the expenditures in ADDITION to seeking additional TARP legislation.

You can deny history all you wish, but facts remain facts all the same.

 

[8537]

That is -- of course -- not quite true. In the first place, under the original TARP program, the SECOND massive set of expenditures required Congressional approval.

No, no it didn't. Once Treasury requested it, Congress had three days to STOP it or the cash would be allocated. The first TARP gave congressional approval to the second tranche.

Wrong. Congress had to VOTE for the release of the monies. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/business/economy/16webstimulus.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=TARP&st=cse

Of course you remain wrong.
Paulson Wants Rest of TARP Funds From Congress - WSJ.com

TARP Timeline

How Congress can make more funds available under the TARP legislation:

The President must submit to Congress a written report detailing how Treasury will use the remaining $350 billion in order to start the clock.

The text of the Joint Resolution of Disapproval must be introduced within 3-days of receiving the President's report. Fast track procedures are spelled out in the statute for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

If Congress passes a Joint Resolution of Disapproval within 15-days of receiving the President's report, the Treasury is limited to the $350 billion previously authorized. If no such Joint Resolution is enacted into law, the Secretary of the Treasury receives the remaining $350 billion for a total outstanding balance at any one time of $700 billion.
If the President vetoes the Joint Resolution of Disapproval, the 15-day limit continues to apply but the clock is paused until Congress receives the actual veto message.

 

[8537]

As I already correctly noted, the fact that it got passed under TARP I does NOT mean that Congress didn't have to separately ACT again to authorize the expenditure of the additional funds. Congress DID have to so act.

And President OBama sure as hell DID push Congress to authorize that second portion of the expenditures in ADDITION to seeking additional TARP legislation.

You can deny history all you wish, but facts remain facts all the same.

Congress had to act separately to PREVENT the next 350B.

 

[Synthaholic]

That is -- of course -- not quite true. In the first place, under the original TARP program, the SECOND massive set of expenditures required Congressional approval. So, while I concede it came under just the one ACT, it still required a SEPARATE Congressional authorization. And, at President Obama's repeated insistence, Congress did so: TARP: The Sequel - BusinessWeek

I'm sorry, but the sub-title of the article clearly says:

"Now, the debate over how to spend the second $350 billion of the government rescue program. This time, distressed homeowners may get help"

That's not a second TARP, it's the second part of the only TARP, rammed through by Bush and Paulson.

Additionally, look at the date of the article: January 16, 2009. So "President" Obama did no such thing, as Bush was President.

You ARE sorry.

I have been civil when I have engaged you in conversation since I joined this board, Liability. If you are unable to defend your positions without personal attacks, let me know, and I will play it your way.

And you are wrong.

As I already correctly noted, the fact that it got passed under TARP I does NOT mean that Congress didn't have to separately ACT again to authorize the expenditure of the additional funds. Congress DID have to so act.

No. Congress did not have to act. It says so right in your link. All that was required was for the Senate to release those funds. They did not pass a second TARP. The House had no involvement at all.

And President OBama sure as hell DID push Congress to authorize that second portion of the expenditures in ADDITION to seeking additional TARP legislation.

Do you mean Senator Obama? President-Elect Obama? At the time of this Senate move to release the second part of the one and only, Bush/Paulson TARP, Bush was president.

That is a fact.

What 'additional' TARP legislation did Senator Obama seek?

You can deny history all you wish, but facts remain facts all the same.

Yes. Facts are facts. Make sure you get them right.

 

[Liability]

I'm sorry, but the sub-title of the article clearly says:

"Now, the debate over how to spend the second $350 billion of the government rescue program. This time, distressed homeowners may get help"

That's not a second TARP, it's the second part of the only TARP, rammed through by Bush and Paulson.

Additionally, look at the date of the article: January 16, 2009. So "President" Obama did no such thing, as Bush was President.

You ARE sorry.

I have been civil when I have engaged you in conversation since I joined this board, Liability. If you are unable to defend your positions without personal attacks, let me know, and I will play it your way.



No. Congress did not have to act. It says so right in your link. All that was required was for the Senate to release those funds. They did not pass a second TARP. The House had no involvement at all.

And President OBama sure as hell DID push Congress to authorize that second portion of the expenditures in ADDITION to seeking additional TARP legislation.

Do you mean Senator Obama? President-Elect Obama? At the time of this Senate move to release the second part of the one and only, Bush/Paulson TARP, Bush was president.

That is a fact.

What 'additional' TARP legislation did Senator Obama seek?

You can deny history all you wish, but facts remain facts all the same.

Yes. Facts are facts. Make sure you get them right.

A. Stop whining.

B. Facts remain facts and you have failed to get them right. Get on that pronto.

I backed up what I said, and you cannot.

 

[Synthaholic]

You ARE sorry.

I have been civil when I have engaged you in conversation since I joined this board, Liability. If you are unable to defend your positions without personal attacks, let me know, and I will play it your way.



No. Congress did not have to act. It says so right in your link. All that was required was for the Senate to release those funds. They did not pass a second TARP. The House had no involvement at all.



Do you mean Senator Obama? President-Elect Obama? At the time of this Senate move to release the second part of the one and only, Bush/Paulson TARP, Bush was president.

That is a fact.

What 'additional' TARP legislation did Senator Obama seek?

You can deny history all you wish, but facts remain facts all the same.

Yes. Facts are facts. Make sure you get them right.

A. Stop whining.

B. Facts remain facts and you have failed to get them right. Get on that pronto.

I backed up what I said, and you cannot.

A. I'm not whining. I'm calling you out on your hand waving, and attempts at deflection. It won't work.

B. I used your own link for back up. You, OTOH, have yet to prove what you wrongly claimed:

Only ******* delusional liberoidal morons can maintain that President Obama somehow "rescued" our financial institutions. In his ******* Marxist way, he inserted GOVERNMENT improperly into the entire equation not just setting a terrible precedent but also costing us boat loads of money which leads us further down the road to the collapse of a capitalistic system.

 

[Liability]

I have been civil when I have engaged you in conversation since I joined this board, Liability. If you are unable to defend your positions without personal attacks, let me know, and I will play it your way.



No. Congress did not have to act. It says so right in your link. All that was required was for the Senate to release those funds. They did not pass a second TARP. The House had no involvement at all.



Do you mean Senator Obama? President-Elect Obama? At the time of this Senate move to release the second part of the one and only, Bush/Paulson TARP, Bush was president.

That is a fact.

What 'additional' TARP legislation did Senator Obama seek?



Yes. Facts are facts. Make sure you get them right.

A. Stop whining.

B. Facts remain facts and you have failed to get them right. Get on that pronto.

I backed up what I said, and you cannot.

A. I'm not whining. I'm calling you out on your hand waving, and attempts at deflection. It won't work.

B. I used your own link for back up. You, OTOH, have yet to prove what you wrongly claimed:

Only ******* delusional liberoidal morons can maintain that President Obama somehow "rescued" our financial institutions. In his ******* Marxist way, he inserted GOVERNMENT improperly into the entire equation not just setting a terrible precedent but also costing us boat loads of money which leads us further down the road to the collapse of a capitalistic system.

No. You're whining.

And I have already proved my contention. In case you had failed to notice (it was in like ALL the papers, so really, how you missed it is kind of difficult to explain): President Obama has sought the expenditures of more monies than any other President in our history and he has gotten Congress to go along with him.

Are you actually attempting to dispute how much of the MASSIVE increase in the deficit his Administration has responsibility for? You need "proof" of that? Normally one doesn't require "proof" of something that is not in dispute.* So, perhaps you are merely quibbling?

You are correct on one point, however. The effort made by President Obama to get Congress to authorize the second installment of the damn TARP program came while he was still managing the OFFICE of the PRESIDENT-Elect. He had not, in fact, yet taken the oath of office (that came less than a week later). But he sure as shit DID lobby HARD to get Congress to do it. And I provided the link for that already

___________________
* Here is link to a March 2009 piece from The Heritage Foundation. The Obama Budget: Spending, Taxes, and Doubling the National Debt | The Heritage Foundation.

Compare what was then just under way or still in the proposal stages with the historical record since then.