Pity Party! Obama, "I can't work with GOP Leadership." AW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CrusaderFrank]

We can absorb another 9/11, but I can't work with the GOP

Ah yes, I note from the five ******* pages in a Google search that the rabid right wing noise machine has glommed onto those simple words and twists it into a monstrous faux pas. Bullshit.

The comment to Woodward was in the context of a terrorist organization, either al-Qaeda or one of the myriad other like groups, obtaining a nuclear weapon and literally "blowing up Cleveland," which is one of the scare comments used by one of Bush's pro-war talking heads. Here is the full comment:

“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever… we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

You mean we're NOT?

I mean it's hilarious that Obama is glibly talking about the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of people repeating this

but he's too much of a ******* ****** to work with the opposing political party in his own country!

 

[Samson]

We can absorb another 9/11, but I can't work with the GOP

Ah yes, I note from the five ******* pages in a Google search that the rabid right wing noise machine has glommed onto those simple words and twists it into a monstrous faux pas. Bullshit.

The comment to Woodward was in the context of a terrorist organization, either al-Qaeda or one of the myriad other like groups, obtaining a nuclear weapon and literally "blowing up Cleveland," which is one of the scare comments used by one of Bush's pro-war talking heads. Here is the full comment:

“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever… we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

You mean we're NOT?

I mean it's hilarious that Obama is glibly talking about the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of people repeating this

but he's too much of a ******* ****** to work with the opposing political party in his own country!

Obama wants another 9/11 to help his 2012 re-election.

Just like Idi Amin.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well now think about it. We have trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see--nobody, and I mean NOBODY can give us any kind of definitive figures for that though--we have a Congress on recess without having passed a 2011 budget or any appropriations bills and who have left America's business ownes stranded with no clarification of what their tax structures are going to be next year. We have near 10% unemployment after a trillion dollars in spending was absolutely essential to keep it from going much over 8%. And we have a Congress and President wanting to pass another $418 BILLION dollar stimulus package in the lame duck session after the election.

And you on the left are defending that.

You wouldn't call it insane if the conservatives were defending that?

You're right. It would be insane. If it were done during a robust economy. One where the financial system damn near melted down to the center of the earth. One where the largest, most iconic americans companies producing the best know American products in the world had not teetered on the brink of collapse. It would be insane to throw capital into such an economy.

But the policies of Trickle Down economics failed to produce the wealth it promised. As it turns out, the economy is run by consumers. Coddling such a small minority of consumers by giving them tax breaks fails to keep enough money accessible to the majority (the middle class) and the spending dynamo they are thus moving capital around in the macro economy.

And the spending of the previous eight years on two wars and tax breaks to ship factories overseas has wrought a bubble economy where greed rules and 'unreasonable exuberance' calls the tune.

So, it's time to break out the Keynsian school of economic and give the voodoo school a time out.

Business if calling a time out while they sit on mountains of cash. they're waiting for that middle class consumer giant to get released from the ER after taking it on the chin by Trickle Down for so long.

In all due respect Sir, that just won't wash. The European community had the same meltdown, the same kinds of problems, economies in as severe as distress as ours. But they didn't use the same tactic of blindly throwing massive amounts of money--money they didn't have--at the problem and most are all well on their way to economic health now if they have not already recovered. Those that are not are those who borrowed more than was fiscally prudent and are now paying the piper. Just as we are.

The Europeans counseled us to not do what the Obama Administration has done to deal with the problem. Their counsel fell on deaf ears. Not only has it failed, as the counselors knew it would, but the Administration has not learned anything from the failure. They want to do even more of it.

And THAT is why Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet and why so many Democrats are in danger of losing their seats in November.

And they should.

You can't compare the European economic struggles to ours. The rest of the world still thinks of this country and the U.S. dollar as safe havens for capital. As the world's largest economy and its only superpower, this gives us access to capital at rates that are less costly than borrowing from the IMF. Other countries are buying OUR treasury bonds at record rates because of low interest.

 

[Samson]

You're right. It would be insane. If it were done during a robust economy. One where the financial system damn near melted down to the center of the earth. One where the largest, most iconic americans companies producing the best know American products in the world had not teetered on the brink of collapse. It would be insane to throw capital into such an economy.

But the policies of Trickle Down economics failed to produce the wealth it promised. As it turns out, the economy is run by consumers. Coddling such a small minority of consumers by giving them tax breaks fails to keep enough money accessible to the majority (the middle class) and the spending dynamo they are thus moving capital around in the macro economy.

And the spending of the previous eight years on two wars and tax breaks to ship factories overseas has wrought a bubble economy where greed rules and 'unreasonable exuberance' calls the tune.

So, it's time to break out the Keynsian school of economic and give the voodoo school a time out.

Business if calling a time out while they sit on mountains of cash. they're waiting for that middle class consumer giant to get released from the ER after taking it on the chin by Trickle Down for so long.

In all due respect Sir, that just won't wash. The European community had the same meltdown, the same kinds of problems, economies in as severe as distress as ours. But they didn't use the same tactic of blindly throwing massive amounts of money--money they didn't have--at the problem and most are all well on their way to economic health now if they have not already recovered. Those that are not are those who borrowed more than was fiscally prudent and are now paying the piper. Just as we are.

The Europeans counseled us to not do what the Obama Administration has done to deal with the problem. Their counsel fell on deaf ears. Not only has it failed, as the counselors knew it would, but the Administration has not learned anything from the failure. They want to do even more of it.

And THAT is why Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet and why so many Democrats are in danger of losing their seats in November.

And they should.

You can't compare the European economic struggles to ours. The rest of the world still thinks of this country and the U.S. dollar as safe havens for capital. As the world's largest economy and its only superpower, this gives us access to capital at rates that are less costly than borrowing from the IMF. Other countries are buying OUR treasury bonds at record rates because of low interest.

Obama is printing money so he can devalue the dollar.

Just like Hitler.

 

[MaggieMae]

Foreign heads of state must be scratching their heads over some of the shit Obama says and thinking, "Is this guy really President?"

Oddly enough, none of them do. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is the step where you lose out. You force candidates on the GOP who make people scratch their heads and say "what the hell is this idiot talking about?"
Rather than selecting candidates who can appeal to the masses, tea baggers select candidates from the lunatic fringe who must be hidden from the public, avoid interviews other than Fox and run away when asked to follow up on their positions.

Are Sharron Angle, Christie O'Donnell and Rand Paul representative of what the Tea Party has to offer us?

Rand is far superior to the false image painted of him by you liberal Democrats. Sharron is no problem, either. I will concede a small problem with the image of O'Donnell, even though it is over-played by you liberoidal Democratics. But even so, her candidacy ousted a RINO. That should put the GOP on notice that business as usual is no longer going to be a safe route for them. This pushes the Party gently to the right.

The liberoidal Dims will certainly get creamed in the General Dejections even if SOME of the Tea Party endorsed candidates are a bit of a puzzlement.

It will put the GOP on notice that they can't win national elections if they continue to bow to the Tea Baggers

Even Krauthammer invoked that very thought in a column a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Samson]

Foreign heads of state must be scratching their heads over some of the shit Obama says and thinking, "Is this guy really President?"

Oddly enough, none of them do. Gee, I wonder why.

They're afraid of him.

He does have his finger on our nukes.

 

[MaggieMae]

Rand is far superior to the false image painted of him by you liberal Democrats. Sharron is no problem, either. I will concede a small problem with the image of O'Donnell, even though it is over-played by you liberoidal Democratics. But even so, her candidacy ousted a RINO. That should put the GOP on notice that business as usual is no longer going to be a safe route for them. This pushes the Party gently to the right.

The liberoidal Dims will certainly get creamed in the General Dejections even if SOME of the Tea Party endorsed candidates are a bit of a puzzlement.

It will put the GOP on notice that they can't win national elections if they continue to bow to the Tea Baggers

Wrong. It will put the Republican CANDIDATES on notice that they had best start paying actual allegiance to the precepts upon which our Republic was founded if they want to win any primaries. And they can't win general elections if they cannot win primaries.

Then, when it's time to face the Constitutionally unfaithful liberal Democratics, the Tea Party will help the Republican candidates win.

It is you liberal Democratics who are ultimately going to bear the brunt of voter disaffection with your disdain for the limits imposed on government by the Constitution.

Your analysis serves to confirm that you guys are incapable of learning.

Good.

I'd love either Sharon or Christine to come to my house and teach me something.

 

[MaggieMae]

The GOP will either absorb the Conservative values of Fiscal Responsibility and Limited Government promoted by the Tea Parties, or the Tea Party will replace the GOP over time.

Either way? The Republicans are on probation as the people are concerned. The Dems are about to become irrelevant. But they know this.

Thus we will see one huge hissy fit display by the DEMS on their exodus before January.

Irrelevant? Ya think? Climb outside your box and take a peek:

Priorities

 

[Samson]

I'd love either Sharon or Christine to come to my house and teach me something.

How about Both?

 

[Liability]

We can absorb another 9/11, but I can't work with the GOP

Ah yes, I note from the five ******* pages in a Google search that the rabid right wing noise machine has glommed onto those simple words and twists it into a monstrous faux pas. Bullshit.

The comment to Woodward was in the context of a terrorist organization, either al-Qaeda or one of the myriad other like groups, obtaining a nuclear weapon and literally "blowing up Cleveland," which is one of the scare comments used by one of Bush's pro-war talking heads. Here is the full comment:

“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever… we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

You mean we're NOT?

I mean it's hilarious that Obama is glibly talking about the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of people * * * *

"See, madness, as you know...


...is like gravity.


All it takes is a little push."
-- one of the the Joker's lines from The Dark Knight.

 

[MaggieMae]

Many of us object to liberal Democrat Parody political philosophy. Why? Because we object to socialism and we object to the denigration of the Constitutional principle of LIMITED government.

Given a two-party choice, then, of a Republican or a Democratic, many of us choose Republican. But the GOP loses that allegiance when they effectively become a watered-down version of the Democrat Parody.

If the GOP is just the Democrat Parody Lite, then losing the GOP as the "second" Party is no real loss.

It might take time, but if the GOP doesn't change to our liking, lots of us are prepared to permit the GOP to ******* die in order to cultivate a viable third Party becoming the actual SECOND Party in a two party system. The Whigs are no more. The GOP could easily go the same route.

I don't personally give a rat's ass about the continued existence of the Republican Party in and of itself. I dumped them, after all.

But I do care for the existence of a viable, actual and credible ALTERNATIVE to the Democrat Parody. If the GOP fails to step up to become -- once again -- that kind of Party, then it can die for all I care. It will get replaced.

On the other hand, The Dims are gonna get dumped right and left in the pending Midterms; and that will happen for very good reasons.

'Tis a start.

The Constitutional Conservative option.

'Cause when it gets down to brass tacks? It is Conservatives raising the challange, raising their voices...and the majority of them aren't as you and I being politically active, but rather people just trying to live their lives as they always have...but have had massive roadblocks placed in their path from a government they thought they could trust to see to it.

It's a shame though that these people have awakened to a nightmare, and apathy for once in my life I see has taken a long needed hiatus.

What 'massive' roadblocks? Are you not still free to come and go as you please, with your guns?

 

[MaggieMae]

The GOP leadership knows all this. Yet they do indeed refuse to come up with compromising positions. LISTEN TO THEM!! Both Boehner and McConnell get before the cameras and spout nothing but propaganda! And you come here and just repeat that propaganda.

Damnit!

I hate it when politicians "spout nothing but propaganda!!"

Who the heck do they think they are??? Rachel Maddow? Keith Olbermann? Chris Matthews?

Yup, they might as well be.

 

[Samson]

I'd love either Sharon or Christine to come to my house and teach me something.

How about Both?

 

[MaggieMae]

Boehner seems to have gotten the message. DeMint already seems to be on point.

They are far from alone.

The Tea Party Revolution is not expected to be "won" in one set of mid-term elections.

Right now, the point is to put the damn BRAKES on the liberal Democrat steamroller.

Coming up is the true point of the revolution.

Isn't it wonderful that the original design of our Republic can be seen in effect? A bloodless revolution in accord with our founding principles, hopes, aspirations, desires and plans.

I have to give you kudos for a change for posting something decent and worthy of thought. If only that CAN happen, it indeed would be wonderful. But I remain skeptical because I know that changes like that require monumental changes in existing policies (not all implemented by Democrats, by the way) and a lot of people in the middle- and lower-classes will suffer. We all know how the fringe elements of the Tea Party Movement want change NOW! Ain't gonna happen NOW. Then what? A bloody revolution after all?

Interesting. (A) I agree that not all of the existing policies can fairly be laid at the feet of the Democratics. I am none too thrilled with Republicans who have foisted off so much of this problem on America.

(B) The changes I think we need (and the beginnings of which are inherent, I hope, in the Tea Party movement and its present electoral effects) will be difficult to achieve. I am not sure "monumental" is quite the right word, but I get your gist. My way of seeing it is the same either way. It takes concerted EFFORT. But nothing whatsoever will happen until we focus the political will on these politicians to compel them to exert that effort. If I happen upon a large boulder and try to tip it over by pushing on it with my index finger, it's safe to say that the boulder isn't going to move. But if I get myself a fulcrum, as Archimedes might say, I can move mountains. The Tea Party is the fulcrum.

(C) the "monumental" changes do NOT require that the middle class and the poor need to suffer. I just flatly disagree with you on that. Our PRESENT course guarantees endless suffering. Changing course does not, but it implies the possibility of very positive change and the avoidance of suffering.

(D) Change of the kind we need may not come all at once. But significant change can indeed happen right now. Get rid of the liberal Democrat majority in Congress, and their forward movement can be fully halted. When you are speeding off in the wrong direction at break neck speeds, the application of working brakes is a very positive change. And that changes happens quite fast. No bloody revolution required.

And btw, putting some of your snarky introductory comments (and innuendos) aside, it was refreshing seeing you engage in debate on a more mature level, too.

Ironically, the reason you suddenly got praise from me is because YOU were not being snarky...for a change. I see a lot of people backing off from harsh diatribes, and I think that's because one party doesn't feel backed against a wall at the moment, and the supporters feeling the constant need to be in a defensive (often ugly) position.

Back to the subject, though, I really would like to know how people expect everything can change and still not hurt huge segments of society without the infusion of money (funding) from somewhere. Do you honestly believe the private sector is going to be willing to step up and fill in the void when social programs get yanked? I don't.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ah yes, I note from the five ******* pages in a Google search that the rabid right wing noise machine has glommed onto those simple words and twists it into a monstrous faux pas. Bullshit.

The comment to Woodward was in the context of a terrorist organization, either al-Qaeda or one of the myriad other like groups, obtaining a nuclear weapon and literally "blowing up Cleveland," which is one of the scare comments used by one of Bush's pro-war talking heads. Here is the full comment:

“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever… we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

You mean we're NOT?

I mean it's hilarious that Obama is glibly talking about the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of people repeating this

but he's too much of a ******* ****** to work with the opposing political party in his own country!

Obama wants another 9/11 to help his 2012 re-election.

Just like Idi Amin.

Huh? Jeezus, now there's a stretch. Or not. I'm beginning to think you have MPD.

 

[Liability]

I have to give you kudos for a change for posting something decent and worthy of thought. If only that CAN happen, it indeed would be wonderful. But I remain skeptical because I know that changes like that require monumental changes in existing policies (not all implemented by Democrats, by the way) and a lot of people in the middle- and lower-classes will suffer. We all know how the fringe elements of the Tea Party Movement want change NOW! Ain't gonna happen NOW. Then what? A bloody revolution after all?

Interesting. (A) I agree that not all of the existing policies can fairly be laid at the feet of the Democratics. I am none too thrilled with Republicans who have foisted off so much of this problem on America.

(B) The changes I think we need (and the beginnings of which are inherent, I hope, in the Tea Party movement and its present electoral effects) will be difficult to achieve. I am not sure "monumental" is quite the right word, but I get your gist. My way of seeing it is the same either way. It takes concerted EFFORT. But nothing whatsoever will happen until we focus the political will on these politicians to compel them to exert that effort. If I happen upon a large boulder and try to tip it over by pushing on it with my index finger, it's safe to say that the boulder isn't going to move. But if I get myself a fulcrum, as Archimedes might say, I can move mountains. The Tea Party is the fulcrum.

(C) the "monumental" changes do NOT require that the middle class and the poor need to suffer. I just flatly disagree with you on that. Our PRESENT course guarantees endless suffering. Changing course does not, but it implies the possibility of very positive change and the avoidance of suffering.

(D) Change of the kind we need may not come all at once. But significant change can indeed happen right now. Get rid of the liberal Democrat majority in Congress, and their forward movement can be fully halted. When you are speeding off in the wrong direction at break neck speeds, the application of working brakes is a very positive change. And that changes happens quite fast. No bloody revolution required.

And btw, putting some of your snarky introductory comments (and innuendos) aside, it was refreshing seeing you engage in debate on a more mature level, too.

Ironically, the reason you suddenly got praise from me is because YOU were not being snarky...for a change. I see a lot of people backing off from harsh diatribes, and I think that's because one party doesn't feel backed against a wall at the moment, and the supporters feeling the constant need to be in a defensive (often ugly) position.

Back to the subject, though, I really would like to know how people expect everything can change and still not hurt huge segments of society without the infusion of money (funding) from somewhere. Do you honestly believe the private sector is going to be willing to step up and fill in the void when social programs get yanked? I don't.

Off topic portion of reply: It is the snarkiness of others to which you object. I have no problem with being sarcastic, obviously, and I don't care if others use that ad hominem type device on me. But I do find it amusing that others object to my use of it when they are just as willing as I am to resort to it. There's a word for that ....

Back ON Topic: I suggested that "change" is not the thing that will "hurt because it's the present COURSE that is setting everyone up for the great fall. There is no such thing as "infusion" of money; and I believe that kind of thinking (which you casually tossed-out-there) IS the very problem. The Government doesn't "give" AIG or CITICorp or welfare recipients money, etc. The government HAS no money. They make and sell no product. They do, however, REDISTRIBUTE money. They TAKE it (lawfully, but a clear cut seizure all the same) from OTHERS. They TAKE it from US. Then they play Robin Hood.

One of the reasons we need to stop this idiotic process is that it leads to dependence. The people start to believe that the government is there to provide this nanny-state largess. But it isn't. That is not the valid or proper function of government. Another reason we need to stop this idiotic process is because we fought for a Constitutionally LIMITED government for a lot of very good and sound reasons. Many of us strongly OBJECT to any practice that undermines that fundamental precept of our Republic.

And let's get real. You don't take a drug-addicted patient off of heroin overnight. You wean him off it. Doctors are very well aware of the problems of withdrawal. So they do the painful things slowly. Methadone maintenance is not a cure-all. But it does help sometimes to get a heroin addict off of heroin.

Similarly, nobody is going to just willy-nilly terminate Social Security or a Welfare Program overnight. But we had damn well BETTER get STARTED on it in whatever way or ways we can as soon as possible because there's one thing we already know for CERTAIN. Unless we act, PRONTO, we ARE going to be bankrupt.

And I am at a loss to see how national bankruptcy will end up being of any help to those in need.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suggested that "change" is not the thing that will "hurt because it's the present COURSE that is setting everyone up for the great fall. There is no such thing as "infusion" of money; and I believe that kind of thinking (which you casually tossed-out-there) IS the very problem. The Government doesn't "give" AIG or CITICorp or welfare recipients money, etc. The government HAS no money. They make and sell no product. They do, however, REDISTRIBUTE money. They TAKE it (lawfully, but a clear cut seizure all the same) from OTHERS. They TAKE it from US. Then they play Robin Hood.

One of the reasons we need to stop this idiotic process is that it leads to dependence. The people start to believe that the government is there to provide this nanny-state largess. But it isn't. That is not the valid or proper function of government. Another reason we need to stop this idiotic process is because we fought for a Constitutionally LIMITED government for a lot of very good and sound reasons. Many of us strongly OBJECT to any practice that undermines that fundamental precept of our Republic.

And let's get real. You don't take a drug-addicted patient off of heroin overnight. You wean him off it. Doctors are very well aware of the problems of withdrawal. So they do the painful things slowly. Methadone maintenance is not a cure-all. But it does help sometimes to get a heroin addict off of heroin.

Similarly, nobody is going to just willy-nilly terminate Social Security or a Welfare Program overnight. But we had damn well BETTER get STARTED on it in whatever way or ways we can as soon as possible because there's one thing we already know for CERTAIN. Unless we act, PRONTO, we ARE going to be bankrupt.

And I am at a loss to see how national bankruptcy will end up being of any help to those in need.

First off, Bravo!!

The disconnect comes in the propensity to accuse anybody who opposes one point of view as spouting 'rhetoric' while applauding one's partisan favorites as 'having great ideas' when they oppose the other side. Both sides actually have ideas. It's just that we like some ideas and don't like others.

There is also the propensity to demonize that which we oppose or have been taught to oppose. Take oil companies. Those who disrespect them will invariably point to government subsidies as an evil thing even though such subsidies reduce our dependence on foreign oil purchased from people who don't like us very much and even though oil is the fuel of democracy, productivity, prosperity, and hopes for a better future at this time.

The same people will condemn anybody who suggests reducing subsidies to the programs they have been taught to embrace: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, ADC, etc. etc. etc. Propose any form of reform or reduced dependency on these programs, and invariably somebody will accuse you of wanting to impoverish or kill old people, kids, poor people, yadda yadda.

But those who propose reform of the sacred cows or reverse of obviously destructive or dangerous policies are deemed to have 'no ideas'. And the true partisan, though in his heart he knows the policies aren't working and/or are dangerous, at least they are ideas if it is his/her darlings who propose them.

Just once I wish we could focus on the issues themselves and leave who does and does not support them out of it. But unfortunately, our fearless leaders are not about to allow that. Or apparently many of their followers for that matter.

 

[beowolfe]

Like I've said time and time again, the GOP doesn't know how to govern.

 

[Foxfyre]

Like I've said time and time again, the GOP doesn't know how to govern.

And the Democrats have been doing a bang up job of that? That surely explains why the Democrats in Congress have approval ratings in the basement and the President's own approval ratings continue to sink like a stone.

That is the whole emphasis of the Tea Party movement and spirit. Americans who are sick and tired of a government that thinks the American people want or need to be governed. That was never the intent of the Constitution. Our Founders intended for the federal government to secure and defend our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves.