Why can't Republicans explain their "Fiscal Policy"?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, ed, and you have an agenda. And we all know what it is.

You once again must admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to say what is wrong with the conservative /libertarian agenda??

See why we are 1000% sure a liberal is slow, so very very slow.

What was your favorite most conservative year Ed?

1800 of course, when Jefferson was elected and the Second American Revolution began by clarifying that that the first revolution had been about freedom from all government not just the government of England. Jefferson destroyed the big government liberal Federalists who were never heard from again until the communist inspired New Deal.

Now you know how libertarian freedom was established as the principle and tradition of America. Why don't you try Cuba??

 

[Rshermr]

You once again must admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to say what is wrong with the conservative /libertarian agenda??

See why we are 1000% sure a liberal is slow, so very very slow.

What was your favorite most conservative year Ed?

1800 of course, when Jefferson was elected and the Second American Revolution began by clarifying that that the first revolution had been about freedom from all government not just the government of England. Jefferson destroyed the big government liberal Federalists who were never heard from again until the communist inspired New Deal.

Now you know how libertarian freedom was established as the principle and tradition of America. Why don't you try Cuba??

Ed has been drinking again. Pay him no mind. Soon he will tip over and sleep it off.

 

[Toronado3800]

You once again must admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to say what is wrong with the conservative /libertarian agenda??

See why we are 1000% sure a liberal is slow, so very very slow.

What was your favorite most conservative year Ed?

1800 of course, when Jefferson was elected and the Second American Revolution began by clarifying that that the first revolution had been about freedom from all government not just the government of England. Jefferson destroyed the big government liberal Federalists who were never heard from again until the communist inspired New Deal.

Now you know how libertarian freedom was established as the principle and tradition of America. Why don't you try Cuba??

Isn't Jefferson the bleeding heart who did not want a large standing army or navy? And didn't he want to run the entire.country off tariffs? You hate those, right?

Now I do agree with him on that elemination of the national debt......odd you agree with that and like Ronald Reagan. Where is your consistency?

 

[rdean]

Easton is the type of person that progressives hate...a Berkeley educated far left liberal who got out in the real world and gradually changed her thinking because she realized that what her professors told her about the world wasn't how it really WAS.

Right, Oldstyle, and a Fox regular. Not as you would have us believe, a person who occasionally appears on fox. Really, Oldstyle. And graduating years ago from Cal Berkley does not make one a liberal, except if you are a con. Lets see what she does on FOX.

She is a panelist on "Fox News Sunday" and "Special Report," among other shows and provided prime-time commentary throughout the 2008 election.

Read more: Nina Easton | Biography | Fox News

In addition, she is married to Russell Schriefer, a Republican political strategist and a senior adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. Sounds like a good, impartial source to me.

We could go further, but the point is, she is a Fox regular. Many, many appearances. So, Oldstyle, you are apparently trying to say that Fox has her on regularly for her impartial views. But that, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. Fox never, ever has anyone on its entertainment network who does not assist in its continual attack on anything progressive. Nice try.

True. The second largest shareholder in Fox is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. While his share may seem insignificant to non thinking right wingers, his shares added to Rupert Murdoch's are enough to prevent a hostile takeover. That gives him much too much power. He has boasted he got Fox to change their programming. The Prince is famous for his telethons which raise money for the families of suicide bombers. Which only creates incentives.

While I'm not normally into conspiracy theories, my feeling is Fox is working to divide and bring down this country. They have done a pretty incredible job so far. Thank God their base is shrinking. Growing old and dying. They want everyone to know they have the largest audience, but if you add up Logo, BET, the Spanish networks and all the other networks aimed at minorities, their total surpasses Fox. Like the Republican Party, which is more than 90% white, I suspect Fox mirrors Republican demographics.

 

[Oldstyle]

Easton is the type of person that progressives hate...a Berkeley educated far left liberal who got out in the real world and gradually changed her thinking because she realized that what her professors told her about the world wasn't how it really WAS.

Right, Oldstyle, and a Fox regular. Not as you would have us believe, a person who occasionally appears on fox. Really, Oldstyle. And graduating years ago from Cal Berkley does not make one a liberal, except if you are a con. Lets see what she does on FOX.

She is a panelist on "Fox News Sunday" and "Special Report," among other shows and provided prime-time commentary throughout the 2008 election.

Read more: Nina Easton | Biography | Fox News

In addition, she is married to Russell Schriefer, a Republican political strategist and a senior adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. Sounds like a good, impartial source to me.

We could go further, but the point is, she is a Fox regular. Many, many appearances. So, Oldstyle, you are apparently trying to say that Fox has her on regularly for her impartial views. But that, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. Fox never, ever has anyone on its entertainment network who does not assist in its continual attack on anything progressive. Nice try.

True. The second largest shareholder in Fox is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. While his share may seem insignificant to non thinking right wingers, his shares added to Rupert Murdoch's are enough to prevent a hostile takeover. That gives him much too much power. He has boasted he got Fox to change their programming. The Prince is famous for his telethons which raise money for the families of suicide bombers. Which only creates incentives.

While I'm not normally into conspiracy theories, my feeling is Fox is working to divide and bring down this country. They have done a pretty incredible job so far. Thank God their base is shrinking. Growing old and dying. They want everyone to know they have the largest audience, but if you add up Logo, BET, the Spanish networks and all the other networks aimed at minorities, their total surpasses Fox. Like the Republican Party, which is more than 90% white, I suspect Fox mirrors Republican demographics.

Fox is working to bring down America? LOL Why...because they are the only major news outlet that isn't heavily slanted to the left? If it wasn't for Fox News we would never have gotten to the bottom of Fast & Furious or what happened in Benghazi. The rest of the main stream media is so awed by Barack Obama he could squat and take a dump right on their anchor desk and they'd all applaud like he just cured cancer.

 

[Rshermr]

Right, Oldstyle, and a Fox regular. Not as you would have us believe, a person who occasionally appears on fox. Really, Oldstyle. And graduating years ago from Cal Berkley does not make one a liberal, except if you are a con. Lets see what she does on FOX.


Read more: Nina Easton | Biography | Fox News

In addition, she is married to Russell Schriefer, a Republican political strategist and a senior adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. Sounds like a good, impartial source to me.

We could go further, but the point is, she is a Fox regular. Many, many appearances. So, Oldstyle, you are apparently trying to say that Fox has her on regularly for her impartial views. But that, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. Fox never, ever has anyone on its entertainment network who does not assist in its continual attack on anything progressive. Nice try.

True. The second largest shareholder in Fox is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. While his share may seem insignificant to non thinking right wingers, his shares added to Rupert Murdoch's are enough to prevent a hostile takeover. That gives him much too much power. He has boasted he got Fox to change their programming. The Prince is famous for his telethons which raise money for the families of suicide bombers. Which only creates incentives.

While I'm not normally into conspiracy theories, my feeling is Fox is working to divide and bring down this country. They have done a pretty incredible job so far. Thank God their base is shrinking. Growing old and dying. They want everyone to know they have the largest audience, but if you add up Logo, BET, the Spanish networks and all the other networks aimed at minorities, their total surpasses Fox. Like the Republican Party, which is more than 90% white, I suspect Fox mirrors Republican demographics.

Fox is working to bring down America? LOL Why...because they are the only major news outlet that isn't heavily slanted to the left? If it wasn't for Fox News we would never have gotten to the bottom of Fast & Furious or what happened in Benghazi. The rest of the main stream media is so awed by Barack Obama he could squat and take a dump right on their anchor desk and they'd all applaud like he just cured cancer.

Too funny. Oldstyle said recently when I suggested he got his stuff from the right wing crazy con tool sites and Fox that he NEVER watched FOX. Now, he tells us, that Fox is the only place where you can get the truth.

Here is the issue, dipshit. If you only get your "news" from the right, then you are completely unable to discuss anything with aanyon but someone else from the right. That is, someone else who gets their information from the same sources as you. You can not because you are ignorant. Note, I did not say stupid, though in your case maybe the distinction is immaterial. But ignorant. Your comments about Benghaze and fast and furious are proof.

While the investigation of Benghaze is ongoing, at this point there are wild accusations coming from only one direction. Conservatives. Just as there were with Fast and Furious. Did you see Rand Paul questioning Clinton? There is where you reside. With the right wing outliers who piss off the rest of the known world.

But the way, Fast and Furious was started under the Bush admin, and went bad at during that admin, and under his then director of ATF who started the program. However, when republicans decided to go after the program, they made many, many wild claims, and investigated everything but only AFTER the Obama admin took office. So, what was the result, Oldstyle???
"The fracas over the operation, called Operation Fast and Furious, spiraled into an increasingly contentious standoff between the Obama administration and House Republicans. In June 2012, the Republican-controlled House voted to find Attorney General Eric M. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress, a mostly symbolic act, charging that he was covering up evidence of an attempt to mislead. It was the first time in American history that Congress has imposed that sanction on a sitting member of a president’s cabinet.

In September 2012, the Justice Department’s Inspector General released a scathing critique of federal officials for their handling of Operation Fast and Furious, but essentially exonerated Mr. Holder. The report singled out the actions of 17 officials — two of whom resigned — for a closer look, recommending that most be reviewed for possible discipline or administrative action."
topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/.../index.html

Justice department Fast and Furious investigation clears Eric Holder | World news | guardian.co.uk

For christs sake, Oldstyle, the report sited by the above sites was released LAST SEPTEMBER. And you are still suggesting that the swill that Fox was selling up till then was the only place you could find the truth. Does that tell you anything at all about what is WRONG with you??? Can you still disagree with me when I say you are a dipshit??? GOD, you are stupid. And a con tool.


Odd, Oldstyle, that when the Marine Baracks attacks on our Marines in Libya occurred in 1983, and 221 marines died, Fox did not criticize any of Reagan's officials at all. Not the President, or his cabinet. Even though there had indeed been reports of warnings of security being lacking there. Not a peep. Nor did dems pile on the situation. Instead, dems and repubs and pretty much everyone backed the pres when he got the hell out of dodge four months later.

But in Benghazi, when we loose four, fox and every bat shit crazy con web site is calling for everything up to and including the impeachment of the pres BEFORE any investigation can be completed. You, nor I, do not yet know the results of the investigations, because they are ONGOING. Reports are not yet available. But there is Oldstyle, lined up perfectly with Fox (which he does not watch) and all of the bat shit crazy con web sites, which are the only ones who have declared guilt in the situation. Yep, you are a true con tool. Just more proof.

I really do not have an issue with arguing any position you may have, as long as you can make rational arguments. But here is the thing, Oldstyle, AGENDA IS NOT A RATIONAL ARGUMENT.

Just think what you could know if you did not watch Fox, oldstyle. You may want to start by looking at this piece:
Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone
Not the only one, Oldstyle, and you show the effects. There is a cure. Fox audiences are shrinking. tell you anything??

 

[Too Tall]

I'm watching Michael Steele talk about Republican "fiscal policy". His only policy is "cut taxes". He said cutting taxes will lift people out of poverty.

No mention of education.

No mention of the job's bill Republicans blocked.

No mention of building up American infrastructure.

Just "cut taxes".

I hate to break it to him, if you don't have a job, you aren't worrying about "taxes".

So is that it? Cut taxes? Nothing else? If there is more, what is it?

A much better question is, why can't Democrats in the Senate pass a budget?

 

[Rshermr]

For the same reason that Republicans in the senate can not pass a budget.

 

[Oldstyle]

True. The second largest shareholder in Fox is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. While his share may seem insignificant to non thinking right wingers, his shares added to Rupert Murdoch's are enough to prevent a hostile takeover. That gives him much too much power. He has boasted he got Fox to change their programming. The Prince is famous for his telethons which raise money for the families of suicide bombers. Which only creates incentives.

While I'm not normally into conspiracy theories, my feeling is Fox is working to divide and bring down this country. They have done a pretty incredible job so far. Thank God their base is shrinking. Growing old and dying. They want everyone to know they have the largest audience, but if you add up Logo, BET, the Spanish networks and all the other networks aimed at minorities, their total surpasses Fox. Like the Republican Party, which is more than 90% white, I suspect Fox mirrors Republican demographics.

Fox is working to bring down America? LOL Why...because they are the only major news outlet that isn't heavily slanted to the left? If it wasn't for Fox News we would never have gotten to the bottom of Fast & Furious or what happened in Benghazi. The rest of the main stream media is so awed by Barack Obama he could squat and take a dump right on their anchor desk and they'd all applaud like he just cured cancer.

Too funny. Oldstyle said recently when I suggested he got his stuff from the right wing crazy con tool sites and Fox that he NEVER watched FOX. Now, he tells us, that Fox is the only place where you can get the truth.

Here is the issue, dipshit. If you only get your "news" from the right, then you are completely unable to discuss anything with aanyon but someone else from the right. That is, someone else who gets their information from the same sources as you. You can not because you are ignorant. Note, I did not say stupid, though in your case maybe the distinction is immaterial. But ignorant. Your comments about Benghaze and fast and furious are proof.

While the investigation of Benghaze is ongoing, at this point there are wild accusations coming from only one direction. Conservatives. Just as there were with Fast and Furious. Did you see Rand Paul questioning Clinton? There is where you reside. With the right wing outliers who piss off the rest of the known world.

But the way, Fast and Furious was started under the Bush admin, and went bad at during that admin, and under his then director of ATF who started the program. However, when republicans decided to go after the program, they made many, many wild claims, and investigated everything but only AFTER the Obama admin took office. So, what was the result, Oldstyle???
"The fracas over the operation, called Operation Fast and Furious, spiraled into an increasingly contentious standoff between the Obama administration and House Republicans. In June 2012, the Republican-controlled House voted to find Attorney General Eric M. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress, a mostly symbolic act, charging that he was covering up evidence of an attempt to mislead. It was the first time in American history that Congress has imposed that sanction on a sitting member of a president’s cabinet.

In September 2012, the Justice Department’s Inspector General released a scathing critique of federal officials for their handling of Operation Fast and Furious, but essentially exonerated Mr. Holder. The report singled out the actions of 17 officials — two of whom resigned — for a closer look, recommending that most be reviewed for possible discipline or administrative action."
topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/.../index.html

Justice department Fast and Furious investigation clears Eric Holder | World news | guardian.co.uk

For christs sake, Oldstyle, the report sited by the above sites was released LAST SEPTEMBER. And you are still suggesting that the swill that Fox was selling up till then was the only place you could find the truth. Does that tell you anything at all about what is WRONG with you??? Can you still disagree with me when I say you are a dipshit??? GOD, you are stupid. And a con tool.


Odd, Oldstyle, that when the Marine Baracks attacks on our Marines in Libya occurred in 1983, and 221 marines died, Fox did not criticize any of Reagan's officials at all. Not the President, or his cabinet. Even though there had indeed been reports of warnings of security being lacking there. Not a peep. Nor did dems pile on the situation. Instead, dems and repubs and pretty much everyone backed the pres when he got the hell out of dodge four months later.

But in Benghazi, when we loose four, fox and every bat shit crazy con web site is calling for everything up to and including the impeachment of the pres BEFORE any investigation can be completed. You, nor I, do not yet know the results of the investigations, because they are ONGOING. Reports are not yet available. But there is Oldstyle, lined up perfectly with Fox (which he does not watch) and all of the bat shit crazy con web sites, which are the only ones who have declared guilt in the situation. Yep, you are a true con tool. Just more proof.

I really do not have an issue with arguing any position you may have, as long as you can make rational arguments. But here is the thing, Oldstyle, AGENDA IS NOT A RATIONAL ARGUMENT.

Just think what you could know if you did not watch Fox, oldstyle. You may want to start by looking at this piece:
Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone
Not the only one, Oldstyle, and you show the effects. There is a cure. Fox audiences are shrinking. tell you anything??

Where did I ever say that Fox was the only place you could get the truth? What I said was that Fox was the only place where the story you get isn't heavily slanted to the left. By contrast Fox slants their stories to the right. Unlike you I understand the concept of bias and allow for it.

You amuse as always...you rant about Fox being unreliable and then you come right back with biased sources like The New York Times and The Guardian to prove that Fast & Furious isn't something that Eric Holder holds responsibility for? How amazingly convenient that they release a "scathing" critique of the governmental agencies involved but exonerate the men in charge of those agencies...Eric Holder and Barack Obama. Even though it's patently obvious that both engaged in a determined effort to stonewall the investigation into Fast & Furious as much as humanly possible.

Then you have the gall to demand that we withhold criticism of Obama Administration officials until we know the facts about Benghazi...when those very same Obama Administration officials did their utmost to mislead the American people as to what actually happened in Libya and continue to do so. That Senate hearing with Hilary Clinton was a joke. What difference does it make if it was a planned terrorist attack or just some people walking around who decided to attack? Did our Secretary of State REALLY make that statement? It MATTERS because she deliberately misled us for purely political reasons.

 

[Too Tall]

For the same reason that Republicans in the senate can not pass a budget.

It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget in the Senate. The Democrats have more than 51 members and the Republicans do not.

Care to rethink your rather ridiculous answer?

 

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr HATES it when you point out reality, Too...prepare to be called a "con tool".

 

[Toronado3800]

For the same reason that Republicans in the senate can not pass a budget.

It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget in the Senate. The Democrats have more than 51 members and the Republicans do not.

Care to rethink your rather ridiculous answer?

The Democrats are just not that well organized or in lock step. They are a more diverse bunch I THINK.

 

[Oldstyle]

For the same reason that Republicans in the senate can not pass a budget.

It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget in the Senate. The Democrats have more than 51 members and the Republicans do not.

Care to rethink your rather ridiculous answer?

The Democrats are just not that well organized or in lock step. They are a more diverse bunch I THINK.

The Democrats are a lot less "diverse" now then they were at the start of Obama's first Administration. The moderates of the party...the so called "Blue Dogs" have by and large been replaced by far more liberal Democrats. As for how organized they have to be? Harry Reid controls what comes to the floor...it doesn't take a high level of organization for him to simply keep legislation he doesn't want to go to a vote from ever reaching the Senate floor. It's what he's been regularly doing for the past two years.

 

[Koios]

I'm watching Michael Steele talk about Republican "fiscal policy". His only policy is "cut taxes". He said cutting taxes will lift people out of poverty.

No mention of education.

No mention of the job's bill Republicans blocked.

No mention of building up American infrastructure.

Just "cut taxes".

I hate to break it to him, if you don't have a job, you aren't worrying about "taxes".

So is that it? Cut taxes? Nothing else? If there is more, what is it?

They don't actually have a fiscal policy. They have a Grover Norquist crafted political strategy:

1. Oppose every tax;
2. Say spending is out of control, even though the GOP increases spending more than Dems, on average.

Repeat ad nasseum, then do little else, if anything at all.

 

[deltex1]

I'm watching Michael Steele talk about Republican "fiscal policy". His only policy is "cut taxes". He said cutting taxes will lift people out of poverty.

No mention of education.

No mention of the job's bill Republicans blocked.

No mention of building up American infrastructure.

Just "cut taxes".

I hate to break it to him, if you don't have a job, you aren't worrying about "taxes".

So is that it? Cut taxes? Nothing else? If there is more, what is it?

there's no one on your side smart enuf to grasp the spending reduction proposals.

 

[Too Tall]

Rshermr HATES it when you point out reality, Too...prepare to be called a "con tool".

OK, but his answer to my question was beyond absurd.

 

[Rshermr]

You amuse as always...you rant about Fox being unreliable and then you come right back with biased sources like The New York Times and The Guardian to prove that Fast & Furious isn't something that Eric Holder holds responsibility for?

Sorry, I just do not use fox. For most everyone, both the NY Times and the Guardian are great impartial sources. Expecially, my poor ignorant con, when they are simply providing information straight from an investigation by the JUSTICE DEPT. Dipshit. Get a clue. If you read the report, or listened to actual news, you would learn that Holder was completely exhonorated. Completely, Oldstyle That would be because he did not start the program, and stopped it as soon as he learned about its activities. Just think what you could know, if only you read actual impartial data. So, perhaps you have an impartial source that says that he does.

How amazingly convenient that they release a "scathing" critique of the governmental agencies involved but exonerate the men in charge of those agencies...Eric Holder and Barack Obama.

Well, oldstyle, that does sound like a fox kind of statement that you just made. I wonder where you could have come up with that sentence. First, you apparently assume that Holder has been there since F and F started. Which he was not. Second, you must assume that he was aware of it for a long period of it working, which he was not. And third, you must be ignorant, which you are. Finally, you must not believe the dept of Justice. So you must have additional evidence, that the repubs committee could not come up with. Because of all of your investigative resources. As far a Obama is concerned, he was not involved. Look up NOT INVOLVED. And was charged with nothing except perhaps by some bat shit crazy con tools like you, and without any proof, like you. Perhaps I am underestimating you (a first, if so) and your own investigation proved he DID know a whole lot. You have that evidence, Oldstyle, lets see it. Otherwise, you may want to simply state that you do not, and appologise for acting like a dipshit. You know, what Jindle said about repubs Really applies to you.

Even though it's patently obvious that both engaged in a determined effort to stonewall the investigation into Fast & Furious as much as humanly possible.

Which is again untrue, as the dept of defense said. Again, do you have some proof of your statement, or just more talking out of your ass.

Then you have the gall to demand that we withhold criticism of Obama Administration officials until we know the facts about Benghazi.

.Really? To actually wait until you get the truth. Not oldstyle. He prefers to simply wants to take the word of Fox and the bat shit crazy con web sites and START BLAMING. And again you make statements without proof. Straight out of your ass again

..when those very same Obama Administration officials did their utmost to mislead the American people as to what actually happened in Libya and continue to do so.

Out of your ass again.

That Senate hearing with Hilary Clinton was a joke. What difference does it make if it was a planned terrorist attack or just some people walking around who decided to attack? Did our Secretary of State REALLY make that statement? It MATTERS because she deliberately misled us for purely political reasons.

And again right out of your ass.

You know what, Oldstyle, rational people are just as interested in the truth as you are. So far, all indecations are that we have had it. EXCEPT for statements from FOX and the BAT SHIT CRAZY CON WEB SITES. And CON TOOLS LIKE YOU.

The funny thing is, even after the truth comes out and the report is dry, even if all charges by you dipshits are untrue, and Hillarry and Obama are again LILLY CLEAN, you will still be out there spouting the charges coming from your bat shit crazy con sites. Because, Oldstyle, you do not care about the truth. You just need to post dogma. And truth has never mattered to you.

Look at the F and F findings, and see how wrong the charges were. And wonder just a bit if the carrges of Benghazi are equally wrong. Which they probably will be. And try to wait a while to see the truth. Unless, as we all suspect, you are simply a con tool.

Or, you could, if you cared, get you head out of the fox lies for a bit and look at the findings of the report released less than a week ago:
The Ghosts of Benghazi
"The final report on the attack on the U.S. consulate makes one thing clear: Republican charges of a cover-up are pure fiction."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2012/12/benghazi_report_not_a_cover_up.2.html
You could start apologizing now for your comments. You could admit that you have no impartial evidence. Just statements from far right bat shit crazy con sites, and FOX. But then you will not. Because you have no integrity. Never did, oldstyle. Never did.

And, by the way, why WERE Fox and the other con sites so uninterested in 221 marines dying in Libya in 1983 when it was Reagan who was president. No concern at all. Interesting.
And why are repubs, who voted down money for those consolates in places like and including Libya, which would have been used for added security had it been available, somehow making no mea culpas. Any idea, Oldstyle, or are you going to simply ignore my questions. Thought so.

 

[Rshermr]

You amuse as always...you rant about Fox being unreliable and then you come right back with biased sources like The New York Times and The Guardian to prove that Fast & Furious isn't something that Eric Holder holds responsibility for?

Sorry, I just do not use fox. For most everyone, both the NY Times and the Guardian are great impartial sources. Expecially, my poor ignorant con, when they are simply providing information straight from an investigation by the JUSTICE DEPT. Dipshit. Get a clue. If you read the report, or listened to actual news, you would learn that Holder was completely exhonorated. Completely, Oldstyle That would be because he did not start the program, and stopped it as soon as he learned about its activities. Just think what you could know, if only you read actual impartial data. So, perhaps you have an impartial source that says that he does.

How amazingly convenient that they release a "scathing" critique of the governmental agencies involved but exonerate the men in charge of those agencies...Eric Holder and Barack Obama.

Well, oldstyle, that does sound like a fox kind of statement that you just made. I wonder where you could have come up with that sentence. First, you apparently assume that Holder has been there since F and F started. Which he was not. Second, you must assume that he was aware of it for a long period of it working, which he was not. And third, you must be ignorant, which you are. Finally, you must not believe the dept of Justice. So you must have additional evidence, that the repubs committee could not come up with. Because of all of your investigative resources. As far a Obama is concerned, he was not involved. Look up NOT INVOLVED. And was charged with nothing except perhaps by some bat shit crazy con tools like you, and without any proof, like you. Perhaps I am underestimating you (a first, if so) and your own investigation proved he DID know a whole lot. You have that evidence, Oldstyle, lets see it. Otherwise, you may want to simply state that you do not, and appologise for acting like a dipshit. You know, what Jindle said about repubs Really applies to you.

Even though it's patently obvious that both engaged in a determined effort to stonewall the investigation into Fast & Furious as much as humanly possible.

Which is again untrue, as the dept of defense said. Again, do you have some proof of your statement, or just more talking out of your ass.

Then you have the gall to demand that we withhold criticism of Obama Administration officials until we know the facts about Benghazi.

.Really? To actually wait until you get the truth. Not oldstyle. He prefers to simply wants to take the word of Fox and the bat shit crazy con web sites and START BLAMING. And again you make statements without proof. Straight out of your ass again

..when those very same Obama Administration officials did their utmost to mislead the American people as to what actually happened in Libya and continue to do so.

Out of your ass again.

That Senate hearing with Hilary Clinton was a joke. What difference does it make if it was a planned terrorist attack or just some people walking around who decided to attack? Did our Secretary of State REALLY make that statement? It MATTERS because she deliberately misled us for purely political reasons.

And again right out of your ass.

You know what, Oldstyle, rational people are just as interested in the truth as you are. So far, all indecations are that we have had it. EXCEPT for statements from FOX and the BAT SHIT CRAZY CON WEB SITES. And CON TOOLS LIKE YOU.

The funny thing is, even after the truth comes out and the report is dry, even if all charges by you dipshits are untrue, and Hillarry and Obama are again LILLY CLEAN, you will still be out there spouting the charges coming from your bat shit crazy con sites. Because, Oldstyle, you do not care about the truth. You just need to post dogma. And truth has never mattered to you.

Look at the F and F findings, and see how wrong the charges were. And wonder just a bit if the carrges of Benghazi are equally wrong. Which they probably will be. And try to wait a while to see the truth. Unless, as we all suspect, you are simply a con tool.

Or, you could, if you cared, get you head out of the fox lies for a bit and look at the findings of the report released less than a week ago:
The Ghosts of Benghazi
"The final report on the attack on the U.S. consulate makes one thing clear: Republican charges of a cover-up are pure fiction."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2012/12/benghazi_report_not_a_cover_up.2.html
You could start apologizing now for your comments. You could admit that you have no impartial evidence. Just statements from far right bat shit crazy con sites, and FOX. But then you will not. Because you have no integrity. Never did, oldstyle. Never did.

And, by the way, why WERE Fox and the other con sites so uninterested in 221 marines dying in Libya in 1983 when it was Reagan who was president. Again, 221. Not 4. But 221. No concern at all from the conservative "patriots" about reports of prior knowledge of the danger there. Interesting.
And why are repubs, who voted down money for those consolates in places like and including Libya, which would have been used for added security had it been available, somehow making no mea culpas. Any idea, Oldstyle, or are you going to simply ignore my questions. Thought so.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And, by the way, why WERE Fox and the other con sites so uninterested in 221 marines dying in Libya in 1983 when it was Reagan who was president.

It's one thing when patriotic Americans make a mistake. Then you know they want to fix the system if necessary. But, when America hating liberals who spied for Stalin and oppose the basic concept of our Constitution make a mistake you have to assume it was part of the Stalinist treasonous insanity.

 

[Rshermr]

For the same reason that Republicans in the senate can not pass a budget.

It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget in the Senate. The Democrats have more than 51 members and the Republicans do not.

Care to rethink your rather ridiculous answer?

Uh, too tall, did you ever hear of filibusters? Did you ever here of all time record filibusters? Sorry, nothing passes from the dem side without at least 60 votes. NOTHING.