The system was intended to work through compromise. In the past politics was used to create leverage so, you got a better deal. This new breed of Tea-child politician thinks that the public is stupid and believes their political BS.
The problem is not that the two parties find the polarities of their ideologies so far apart that a compromise cannot be reached... They have mired themselves in perpetual campaign (posturing) pursuing a winner-take-all mentality, a Coke Vs Pepsi marketshare competition, aimed at the meager margin of seats necessary for dominance in either house of government. ...Exacerbated by the efforts of lobbyists bent on instilling a level of inertia that subverts any change in the status quo. Rather than cooperating on fixing problems, they shift emphasis to the (manufactured) battle between opposing viewpoints, generating a controversy that eclipses the business at hand- a Grand Guignol display that serves no practical purpose but distracting drama.
The problem at hand is not so complex- nor is the solution. Government spends money it does not have: expenditures outpace revenue. The solution is a combination of new revenue and cutting expenditures. Every family or business is familiar with the process.
For Congress, the problem is redefined by three dire questions: which party is to blame for the financial mess we're in?, which party earns the mantel of glory for solving the problem? and how can the problem be fixed without compromising the special interests that contribute most generously to re-election campaigns?
Politics is all about compromise, nobody will agree 100% of the time. Both sides should come to middle on what deal is best for the country. The problem now is that both parties have swung to their extremes (so they have different views of what this country should be). You can’t say the Dem’s haven’t swung to the left either when they put Polosi as their leader of the house. Reid isn’t exactly a center of the isle type of guy either.
If Democrats were still in control of Congress we would be talking more spending ..We would of raised the debt ceiling,But not be trying to lower the deficit....I'm glad to see the Republicans standing firm to try to create a government where we spend no more than what we take in...I didn't see Democrats compromise on Obamacare ...It was all their way or no way..How come Obama's budget was voted down 98-0...Seems like Democrats and Republicans came together on that one......
Pat, Democrats have been moving to the right for almost 20 years. Hell, an argument could be made that Nixon was more liberal than Clinton, and on spending issues alone, Reagan destroys Obama when it comes to tax and spend credibility.
A friend of mine always says this about compromise:
Two guys are standing in front of a box of puppies. The first guy says, "Let's kill all these puppies."
The second guys says, "Uh, no. Let's not kill these puppies."
The first guy responds, "Fine, I'll compromise. Let's kill half of these puppies."
Compromise, ain't it grand?
Government should be about finding the best idea, not crapping all over it so both sides get their piece of the action. Sometimes that idea is going to come from Republicans, sometimes it's going to come from Democrats and sometimes it's going to come from a compromise between the two.
The problem is that no one in our federal government seems to have the courage to fight for a good idea anymore. No one will work with anyone else for fear of losing the next election. The great men and women of both parties are gone and we're left with the dregs, a power hungry, ethically challenged group devoid of any sense of reason or honor.
In 2008 the goverment started spending like pigs at the trough. Now we are dealing with the mess. Everyone should pay the same percent as tax and we need to curb the entitlements. The tea party is a call that we can not continue to wollow in the trough as it is empty, you have sucked it dry. Your supposed social programs have made our country sick. Maybe I am just not as smart as some of you but it seems that we reward lazyness and punish hard work. Why should the top earners pay 58% of all the tax collected and you want more? Your ecological restrictions have ran the industry off to other countrys, You shop the cheepest no matter where it comes from. And then wonder where the jobs are. Wake up or is it the intention to destroy our great nation that our fathers fought and died for?
C.M. has it right, Congress doesn't care about compromise or a solution that works best for the most. They care about winning and staying in power. The best solution is if they all resign and let a bankruptcy judge appoint a board of trustees until we can elect new representatives and senators. I know that's not going to happen, it would just be the best thing.
Mark, the Democrats did compromise on what you call Obamacare. We wanted a single-payer health care system and what we got was a giveaway to insurance companies.
Also, Republicans have no interest in ensuring we only spend what we take in. The best evidence is their refusal to institute pay as you go budgeting which was introduced by the Democrats. The Republicans knew they would have to vote to raise taxes if pay-go was instituted and it would mean an end to their deficit spending practices. Practices which put us where we are today, in case you were wondering.
John, Obama recently explained that his vote against raising the debt ceiling was a purely political one. In essence, he admitted to being jerk about it for political gain. It wasn't okay then and it's not okay now.
In 2008 the government started spending like pigs? Sounds like too much revisionist history from Fox News to me. How about we had two wars and giant tax cuts under Bush that were never paid for? How about after 10 years of tax breaks to big business we have a 10% unemployment rate. How about the "job creators" used those breaks to create jobs in China?
I guess I misunderstood my social studys I thought that the congress controled spending? And didnt congress vote for the conflicts? and was congress not controled by Nancy and her group through alot of that time?
I think most of us are done with the demonization. Nancy did this or Obama said that, who gives a rats ass.
The Tea-children had a chance to change the course and chose political gain over substance. They are worse than what we had. At least the other two worthless parties could act like grown-ups and keep the government moving.
Looking at the % of spending compared to gdp from 2000 till today in 2000 it was around 32% 2002 till 2007 it remainded about the same @ around 35% 2007 till today it has climed to between 40-45%
Exactly Rex, both parties love to spend our money and always have. The difference is now those chickens have come home to roost and we need to pay up. That means if grandma has to contribute more for her perscrptions, some rich guy might have to loose some tax breaks. The yacht might cost a bit more. Looks like someone in China will have to work for less money.
This is interesting ... a libertarian write points out that if the GOP would insist on cutting spending back to 18.2 percent of the GDP (which it was under Clinton), then we would have a budget surplus by the end of the decade -- without rolling back the Bush tax cuts.
Rex, that's what happens when you put the wars on the books. Under Bush, they somehow managed to stay off the ledger.
Republican apologists like to pretend that their party doesn't spend money with both hands, but they're wrong. The only spending differences between Republicans and Democrats is who teh money cannon gets aimed at and whter or not they're willing to raise taxes to pay for their bullshit
Charlie, where did you get that, or did you make it up? Tea Party supporters have said cut everything. They have said close overseas bases. They have not said keep the wars going. So, please give us your source.
John, I haven't heard one word from the Tea party about deep cuts to military spending. Everything is tied to the gradual pull back for the two wars. I'm thinking a 50% cut in military spending is long over due. As a few posts have mentioned, just who are we protecting with these bases? I also heard today that one of our spy planes is causing boarder toubles over China. Is this the new enemy for our military complex?
On the bright side; Are You Ready for Some FOOTBALL?
From today's Wall Street Journal sports blog "The Daily Fix"
One of the more timely aspects of the lockout ending is its surprisingly close parallel to the national debt crisis. While Robert Kraft was openly hoping that the NFL negotiations could teach politicians a lesson on how to come together, Republicans and Democrats were still stuck without an agreement on Capitol Hill. The similarities were not lost on many writers. “A tragedy was averted in Washington today, with a historic breakthrough between two opposing sides who’ve been deadlocked for months, with billions of dollars at stake,” Rick Klein of ABC News writes. “Negotiations worked – in football, that is.” The New Yorker’s Ian Crouch heaped on more of the same, recognizing the similarities but taking some comfort in at least one set of negotiations being successful. “While the country wanders its way closer to default,” Crouch writes, “at least there will be pro football to distract us.”
Shoot, maybe the NFL owners ought to work Congress over, they know how to arm wrestle massive egos.
In the NFL, there are truly only two constituencies -- the players and the owners. The fewer stakeholders negotiators are accountable to, the easier it is to bargain.
In Congress, the leaders of the two political parties are accountable to numerous and innumerable constituencies, generally known as "special interests," and no one is accountable to the constituency once affectionately known as "the people."
Charlie, nobody in the "Tea Party" is saying keep the overseas bases and nobody in the administration is saying close any bases, are they? And the only one using the end of the wars as cutting the budget is Harry Reid.
You also have not heard any Tea Party member say keep current defense spending, or can you name one?
John, Jane Corwin and certain of her supporters claimed to speak for the Tea Party, and Corwin opposed ending the wars, bringing the troops home or drawing down defense spending.
Jack Davis, whom Corwin and the GOP attacked as not being real Tea Party, did support and advocate those reductions in spending.
Howard, Corwin was not, in my opinion, a Tea Party member. But my question to Charlie should have been can he name anyone in Congress who is in the Tea Party caucus who is saying not to close any bases and not to cut any, none, military spending.
Interesting is that none of our Democratic representatives in DC from NY are demanding cuts in defense spending. Of course there are a lot of jobs in NY that rely on that spending.
Do you hear any of our local Dems demanding we cut back spending at Fort Drum or at the Niagara Falls Airbase? Did any local Dem demand that new military construction in Monroe County be stopped? I must have missed it.
The anointed prophet of hope and change, seated at the right hand of the father-teleprompter, Barack Hussein Obama is a left wing progressive socialist liberal masquerading as a centrist. When Barack Hussein Obama speaks of compromise, as do all rabid socialist liberals, especially the wealthy ones, it means capitulate.
Many who voted for him are now suffering from the maladies of the potions and elixirs of veiled socialism they swallowed. They think that more of the same will cure them no matter how much misery it causes.
The Democratic Party owns Obama. Their religion of tax and spend while demonizing their opponents have finally resulted in unintended consequences; trickle down poverty, record unemployment, no idea how to fix it, but only place blame (the Tea Party) along with the current national debt…their national debt.
The anointed one’s State of the Union Address was nothing more than a self-serving political campaign speech to buttress his reelection, to ensure the status quo, and to ensure the expansion of business as usual.
<i>Howard, Corwin was not, in my opinion, a Tea Party member. But my question to Charlie should have been can he name anyone in Congress who is in the Tea Party caucus who is saying not to close any bases and not to cut any, none, military spending.</i>
John, Paul Ryan's Budget proposal, for which every member of the Republican Caucus (and therefore all self-described Tea Party members) voted, cut every part of the Federal Government save for one: Defense. In fact, Ryan's Budget plan called for an increase in Defense Funds. It was the only part of the Federal Government that would have seen an increase under the Ryan plan.
Further, silence on the issue of cutting Defense spending does not ipso facto mean that they are open to it. It just means they haven't mentioned it...which could very well mean that they are happy to keep Defense Spending where it is.
Brandon, I guess it depends on where the information comes from. Ryan's budget did not recommend its own cuts to defense but accepts now retired Sec. Def. Gates' budget cut proposal of 78 billion. Senator Dick Durban (D) even acknowledged that, but stated that cut was not enough.
I agree that Ryan should have recommended more than 78 billion. But it is a cut, just not big enough. And the cuts Sec. Gates recommended were not based on the wars ending, they are real cuts.
I agree with you that some seem happy to keep defense spending where it is, at least in the WNY delegation to Congress.
We should just fire of all them & start over. Just comes down to who's hand is in who's pocket... It has never been about what is good for the American people. I think is was said best in this quote: "The best way to control the public is by keeping them poor & uneducated"
Richard I can't follow people who twist the truth and stoop to personal attacks for political gain. The Republican talking points are senseless, Nancy this or Obama that, blah blah, blah.
Every single day the Republicans move further towards an intolerant religious ideology that I could never support. I'm all for smaller government but, not on the backs of our retired people or depriving people medical care.
Charlie,
You seem to be distorting and twisting fact. The Republican plans (there are a few) have all said present retires would not be affected by any SS changes, so why do you repeat that same old lie?
Now our kids would might have to wait longer for SS, but as you now see, we can not even pay seniors their SS checks now unless we borrow the money.
Changes have to be made. And the age requirement was already changed once, under a Democrat named Carter. So it can be done again.
Richard, that may have been the most poorly informed screed I've ever had the dubious pleasure of reading.
The American People want me to break that thing down. I know this because God told me so.
Let's get this party started:
"The anointed prophet of hope and change, seated at the right hand of the father-teleprompter, Barack Hussein Obama is a left wing progressive socialist liberal masquerading as a centrist. When Barack Hussein Obama speaks of compromise, as do all rabid socialist liberals, especially the wealthy ones, it means capitulate."
Richard opens up here with what's known in Tea Party circles as the Muslim Socialist Gambit. It's a defensively weak feint that leaves your weak side open to attack, but it can be effective against players with little to no experience. The trick here is to immediately point out that the President has a middle name that makes white Christians' inferiority complexes boil to the surface.
Most rational people will recognize that infants don't have any say in their names, middle or otherwise, and will continue to follow the logic reaching the conclusion that names aren't all that important anyway, ask Thaddeus McCotter.
This gambit happens in three phases though, and if your opponent has allowed the original move to stand, phase two can begin. This is a very short passive aggressive action where the attacker uses language meant to further reinforce Christian fears. In this case, the words were 'annointed prophet.'The desired result is to make the reader associate Barack Obama with the Anti-Christ.
Phase three of this opening gambit requires the reader to have already accepted the first two premises. This is why the Muslim Socialist Gambit is considered a rather weak rookie move in most circles. Also required is logical dissonance on the part of the reader.
Here's how it works: After having accused the President of being a Muslim pretender candidate, the writer must also infer that he is wealthy and out of touch with 'average folks.' The final thrust comes when the writer also insists that the man is a socialist. Informed people understand that wealth and religion are incompatible with the sort of socialism that they are accusing the President of, but if you've gotten your target to phase three of this gambit, he has already lost the opening.
Mr. Richmond puts a nice touch on the gambit in this instance when he infers that Obama's proposed centrist policies are simply a masquerade. Ostensibly because if those policies became law, the President would then wipe his ass with the bill then break into your house and take your hard earned money which would then either be used as toilet paper in the formerly described manner or given to other black people.
Next comes the middle game. In this case, Mr. Richmond goes with the Murdoch Middle. Observe:
"Many who voted for him are now suffering from the maladies of the potions and elixirs of veiled socialism they swallowed. They think that more of the same will cure them no matter how much misery it causes.
The Democratic Party owns Obama. Their religion of tax and spend while demonizing their opponents have finally resulted in unintended consequences; trickle down poverty, record unemployment, no idea how to fix it, but only place blame (the Tea Party) along with the current national debt…their national debt."
The Murdoch Middle is simple and is typically the only development strategy available after using the Muslim Socialist Gambit. The trick to the Murdoch Middle is to disregard the ineffectiveness of your opening gambit, add nuance to your religious file and clog the center with a real issue that can't be argued withing the context of the game thus keeping your opponent wondering where the next attack will be coming from.
Mr. Richmond seems to be a veritable virtuoso of the Murdoch Middle and, in some circles, it may make up for his rather pedestrian opening. He adds verbiage that alludes to witchcraft (another Christian no-no) while inferring that buyer's remorse from the opposition has reached some sort of boiling point.
He then masterfully inserts a quick reference to things nobody likes (unemployment and the national debt) while insinuating that the cause of both of those things is the 'demonizing' of people such as himself.
Well played, sir. Well played.
It's not over yet though. Mr. Richmond fails to finish well when he chooses to go with the Mistaken Identity End Game instead of the Double Down Draw technique. Observe:
"The anointed one’s State of the Union Address was nothing more than a self-serving political campaign speech to buttress his reelection, to ensure the status quo, and to ensure the expansion of business as usual."
If Mr. Richmond had used the Double Down, also known as old reliable, the game would have finished when the players got frustrated enough to simply leave the room and hang out with people they can actually stand.
Instead, Mistaken Identity was used. Mistaken Identity is a technique that can only be mastered with time, patience and a dedication to the absurd. It relies heavily on having won the first two stages of the game handily. In a perfect world, the Mistaken Identity would only be used if you've already reduced your opponent to a drooling mass of humanity either lying prostrate on teh floor or curled up in the fetal position, begging for an end to the madness.
Mr. Richmond is no master and his end-game falls apart when he reveals his belief that last night's speech was the 'State of the Union' (capital letters his.) This is either a rookie mistake borne of ignorance or a master's stroke borne of deception, but as I stated earlier, absurdity on this level must be preceded by a relentless and perfectly executed offense. Mr. Richmond attempted to use some components of the Double Down, but would have been netter served by immersing himself completely in one tactic or the other.
John you know very well that the Republican stance is to do away with Social Secrity by privatizing it (since Bush). Their platform is also pretty clear when it comes to health care, they could careless if the poor die. Obamacare is "evil" socialism, blah, blah. They chant entitlement, entitlement till my ears bleed. They can't say one thing and mean something else. Their budget developed by Mr Ryan is their blueprint. They own it and it will weigh heavy around their necks.
The Republicans laid out their plans, I give them credit for putting it out there but, they can't go back on it now. I also highly doubt their leadership would say any different in public. Do you think their new party leader Mrs Bachman would tell us something different than what I just said?
Charlie,
So now you have Republicans wanting kids to starve and the old to die. You either drank the cool-aid, have gone off the deep end, or more likely, just like stirring it up.
By the way, where is the Democratic Party budget? The Dems. in the Senate have failed to even present one. Obama's budget was rejected even by his own party (I believe the Senate vote was 97-0), so again, where is the alternative? You might not like Ryan's, but he is the only one to present one.
And you distort Bush's SS plan. He called for you being able to voluntarily put up to 2% of your SS tax into a private account. Since under the current system you have no money for your SS unless we borrow it (from China?), where is the Democratic plan to save SS? Oh, that's right, there is none.
John, I don't care what the Democrats plan is. I also could careless about the Republican plan. All these plans are just senseless politics and worthless without a compromise. That is how our system works.
Howard: In the NFL, there are truly only two constituencies -- the players and the owners. The fewer stakeholders negotiators are accountable to, the easier it is to bargain.
That may be, but to me the glaring difference is both the players and the owners had "skin in the game", they both stood to profit or lose depending on the final outcome, not to mention the probability of losing big bucks if the season didn't start on time. That sense of urgency and chance of personal loss is missing from Congress. If the debt limit doesn't get raised by Aug 4 or whatever, all sorts of calamity have been predicted, but all the little piggies will still get their paychecks, their graft, their lobbyist lunches, their campaign donations, their free rides around the country, their "fact-finding" tours, their interns to chase around and if they can successfully blame the next guy - re election. I suppose the only one with much to lose is Obama, if the economy goes further south, he'll get the blame, deservedly or not. I won't miss him much on January 21, 2013, when President Paul takes over.
After reading 50 some comments, I can certainly understand why Washington is so screwed up. I've said for years, there is only two things wrong with our government...Democrats and Republicians. (Not necessarily in that order)
Posted by Dave Olsen on July 26, 2011 - 1:06pm
@Howard, that would mean ending both wars immediately and abrogating the Department of Homeland Security. For the record, I'm okay with that.
Me too, as a good start
I'm fine with this as well.
God told me to take the rest of the day off...do you think my boss will go for that?
John, you don't seriously believe Tea Party members believe everyone has a right to eat and get medical care, do you? The Tea Party is more of a survival of the richest cult. This idea that they care about Social Security is more damage control then reality.
As for Social Security being easy to cut off for people my age, that is not going to work. Sure, I'll be fine but, from what I heard the average 401k plan holds about $25K. Just who exactly is going to stand for deep cuts to the system? Sounds like the greedy Tea Party needs to help raise the rates now to cover the program.
Charlie,
Again, where do you get your proof they don't care? They might not want the massive give aways we have now (My favorite examples are the free cell phones or the right to Viagra), but that does not mean they don't care just because they have the audacity to disagree with you. And yesterday you did say they wanted people to die.
By the way, how would you define social "entitlements"? Are you saying you are entitled to that money, it's your right to have others money? Social Security as an example, is taking your money to give it to somebody else. You hope when the time comes the government can take money from somebody else and give it to you, or can borrow it like they do now and have somebody else pay the loan back, with interest.
Does anyone know when something like Social Security went from a social safety net and tax policy to an entitlement?
One random observation over the years: former heavy pot smokers inevitably manifest self-affirming dialogue with Jesus. This discussion bears remarkable similarity to some of epiphanies of weed-to-Jesus turnarounds I've known.
The bartender at the Village Inn in Oakfield used to think I was a God. Everytime I walked in the front door he would yell, "Jesus Christ! Are you here again?"
Jesus, his daddy and Casper the Holy Ghost all endorse their gift of weed to the ill and ailing (that's everyone)and wish the hellhounds would back off before they have to smite them with ten more days in the triple digits.
I'm wearing my Ramble 2011 T-Shirt right now, I have connections. The first thing I did was rip the tag out, it was making my neck itch. It, along with my Batavian sweatshirt comprise 2/3 of my wardrobe year round and that's the way I like it. It breaks my heart when I read an obit for a guy my age, I'm too young to die old. People need more chill time and it looks like it is going away.
"John you know very well that the Republican stance is to do away with Social Secrity by privatizing it (since Bush). Their platform is also pretty clear when it comes to health care, they could careless if the poor die. Obamacare is "evil" socialism, blah, blah. They chant entitlement, entitlement till my ears bleed. They can't say one thing and mean something else. Their budget developed by Mr Ryan is their blueprint. They own it and it will weigh heavy around their necks."
Then you said "so now have Republicans wanting kids to starve and the old to die"
I have now said a couple of times, I don't believe that Tea Party members want kids to starve and the old to die. They just could careless if they do. They have a survival of the fittest mentality. They are also the ones who chant entitlement, not me. Attacking the poor is a religion to these people.
Chris,
I get the point. It's called demonizing the other side because you disagree with them. You hint they want people to starve or just die. You say they don't care and hint they are all rich and racist. And the ones who demonize don't like to get called out on it.
On your other blog, a guy named Eric called all Tea Party members racist. You did not make any attempt to correct it, you let it stand unchallenged.
Of course, it's your blog, so you can just let it go as his personal opinion or you could have said something. Then and again, you might agree with him.
John seems to think I've hacked Charlie Mallow's Batavian account.
I respond to people who directly address me. Also if I was at a Tea Party Rally with a paintball gun and randomly fired 100 rounds, I'd hit 90 racists. Take it to the bank.
John, how do you explain the groups outright hatred of Obama? From my point of view his presidency is strongly remisent of Bush's. They both use the military without a second thought. Give tax breaks to the rich. Kept the prison in Cuba open, patriot act, and are strong proponents of the war on terror. They both spent money like drunken sailors, bailing out the banks and giant corporations. They both have also expressed an interest in cutting Social Security. Many of us wonder where the hatred for Obama comes from when there is so little change we can see.
What I see is a bunch of people in Washington with identical policies, fighting each other over who gets to sit in the big chair.
Ok John, it looks like we will have to end the night with some agreement. ( unlike the losers in Washington) Bush was treated badly by some and it was over the top at times.
Posted by George Richardson on July 27, 2011 - 2:46pm
The bartender at the Village Inn in Oakfield used to think I was a God. Everytime I walked in the front door he would yell, "Jesus Christ! Are you here again?"
I may not be thought of as a god, but I have the body of a god, unfortunately that god is Buddah.
I'm no political expert, but
I'm no political expert, but isn't compromise the intent of a 2 party system?
The system was intended to
The system was intended to work through compromise. In the past politics was used to create leverage so, you got a better deal. This new breed of Tea-child politician thinks that the public is stupid and believes their political BS.
It was until the GOP decided
It was until the GOP decided to let the right wing devour the center leaving the lunitics in charge.....bad for GOP....worse for the country.
The problem is not that the
The problem is not that the two parties find the polarities of their ideologies so far apart that a compromise cannot be reached... They have mired themselves in perpetual campaign (posturing) pursuing a winner-take-all mentality, a Coke Vs Pepsi marketshare competition, aimed at the meager margin of seats necessary for dominance in either house of government. ...Exacerbated by the efforts of lobbyists bent on instilling a level of inertia that subverts any change in the status quo. Rather than cooperating on fixing problems, they shift emphasis to the (manufactured) battle between opposing viewpoints, generating a controversy that eclipses the business at hand- a Grand Guignol display that serves no practical purpose but distracting drama.
The problem at hand is not so complex- nor is the solution. Government spends money it does not have: expenditures outpace revenue. The solution is a combination of new revenue and cutting expenditures. Every family or business is familiar with the process.
For Congress, the problem is redefined by three dire questions: which party is to blame for the financial mess we're in?, which party earns the mantel of glory for solving the problem? and how can the problem be fixed without compromising the special interests that contribute most generously to re-election campaigns?
Politics is all about
Politics is all about compromise, nobody will agree 100% of the time. Both sides should come to middle on what deal is best for the country. The problem now is that both parties have swung to their extremes (so they have different views of what this country should be). You can’t say the Dem’s haven’t swung to the left either when they put Polosi as their leader of the house. Reid isn’t exactly a center of the isle type of guy either.
If Democrats were still in
If Democrats were still in control of Congress we would be talking more spending ..We would of raised the debt ceiling,But not be trying to lower the deficit....I'm glad to see the Republicans standing firm to try to create a government where we spend no more than what we take in...I didn't see Democrats compromise on Obamacare ...It was all their way or no way..How come Obama's budget was voted down 98-0...Seems like Democrats and Republicans came together on that one......
Pat, Democrats have been
Pat, Democrats have been moving to the right for almost 20 years. Hell, an argument could be made that Nixon was more liberal than Clinton, and on spending issues alone, Reagan destroys Obama when it comes to tax and spend credibility.
A friend of mine always says this about compromise:
Two guys are standing in front of a box of puppies. The first guy says, "Let's kill all these puppies."
The second guys says, "Uh, no. Let's not kill these puppies."
The first guy responds, "Fine, I'll compromise. Let's kill half of these puppies."
Compromise, ain't it grand?
Government should be about finding the best idea, not crapping all over it so both sides get their piece of the action. Sometimes that idea is going to come from Republicans, sometimes it's going to come from Democrats and sometimes it's going to come from a compromise between the two.
The problem is that no one in our federal government seems to have the courage to fight for a good idea anymore. No one will work with anyone else for fear of losing the next election. The great men and women of both parties are gone and we're left with the dregs, a power hungry, ethically challenged group devoid of any sense of reason or honor.
F**k these people.
In 2008 the goverment
In 2008 the goverment started spending like pigs at the trough. Now we are dealing with the mess. Everyone should pay the same percent as tax and we need to curb the entitlements. The tea party is a call that we can not continue to wollow in the trough as it is empty, you have sucked it dry. Your supposed social programs have made our country sick. Maybe I am just not as smart as some of you but it seems that we reward lazyness and punish hard work. Why should the top earners pay 58% of all the tax collected and you want more? Your ecological restrictions have ran the industry off to other countrys, You shop the cheepest no matter where it comes from. And then wonder where the jobs are. Wake up or is it the intention to destroy our great nation that our fathers fought and died for?
C.M. has it right, Congress
C.M. has it right, Congress doesn't care about compromise or a solution that works best for the most. They care about winning and staying in power. The best solution is if they all resign and let a bankruptcy judge appoint a board of trustees until we can elect new representatives and senators. I know that's not going to happen, it would just be the best thing.
Mark, the Democrats did
Mark, the Democrats did compromise on what you call Obamacare. We wanted a single-payer health care system and what we got was a giveaway to insurance companies.
Also, Republicans have no interest in ensuring we only spend what we take in. The best evidence is their refusal to institute pay as you go budgeting which was introduced by the Democrats. The Republicans knew they would have to vote to raise taxes if pay-go was instituted and it would mean an end to their deficit spending practices. Practices which put us where we are today, in case you were wondering.
How times change. When Obama
How times change. When Obama was in the Senate, he voted against raising the debt ceiling. And he made a good argument for his vote.
John, Obama recently
John, Obama recently explained that his vote against raising the debt ceiling was a purely political one. In essence, he admitted to being jerk about it for political gain. It wasn't okay then and it's not okay now.
Chris, I know he admited it.
Chris,
I know he admited it. I just love hearing him cry about others doing it now.
How about we only let the
How about we only let the people that pay income tax vote? That sure would snip these entitlements down to size quickly.
In 2008 the government
In 2008 the government started spending like pigs? Sounds like too much revisionist history from Fox News to me. How about we had two wars and giant tax cuts under Bush that were never paid for? How about after 10 years of tax breaks to big business we have a 10% unemployment rate. How about the "job creators" used those breaks to create jobs in China?
(No subject)
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BtRbIz-GHo8?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BtRbIz-GHo8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="490" height="390"></object>
I guess I misunderstood my
I guess I misunderstood my social studys I thought that the congress controled spending? And didnt congress vote for the conflicts? and was congress not controled by Nancy and her group through alot of that time?
I think most of us are done
I think most of us are done with the demonization. Nancy did this or Obama said that, who gives a rats ass.
The Tea-children had a chance to change the course and chose political gain over substance. They are worse than what we had. At least the other two worthless parties could act like grown-ups and keep the government moving.
Looking at the % of spending
Looking at the % of spending compared to gdp from 2000 till today in 2000 it was around 32% 2002 till 2007 it remainded about the same @ around 35% 2007 till today it has climed to between 40-45%
Exactly Rex, both parties
Exactly Rex, both parties love to spend our money and always have. The difference is now those chickens have come home to roost and we need to pay up. That means if grandma has to contribute more for her perscrptions, some rich guy might have to loose some tax breaks. The yacht might cost a bit more. Looks like someone in China will have to work for less money.
This is interesting ... a
This is interesting ... a libertarian write points out that if the GOP would insist on cutting spending back to 18.2 percent of the GDP (which it was under Clinton), then we would have a budget surplus by the end of the decade -- without rolling back the Bush tax cuts.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/republicans-should-copy…
Rex, that's what happens when
Rex, that's what happens when you put the wars on the books. Under Bush, they somehow managed to stay off the ledger.
Republican apologists like to pretend that their party doesn't spend money with both hands, but they're wrong. The only spending differences between Republicans and Democrats is who teh money cannon gets aimed at and whter or not they're willing to raise taxes to pay for their bullshit
@Howard, that would mean
@Howard, that would mean ending both wars immediately and abrogating the Department of Homeland Security. For the record, I'm okay with that.
@Howard, that would mean
@Howard, that would mean ending both wars immediately and abrogating the Department of Homeland Security. For the record, I'm okay with that.
Me too, as a good start
@Howard, that would mean
@Howard, that would mean ending both wars immediately and abrogating the Department of Homeland Security. For the record, I'm okay with that.
I have to agree with that also. I Will add though we should shutter a lot of our overseas bases as well. Why do we still have so many in Europe.
2 bases in Belgium really, why?
Pat, we are protecting our
Pat, we are protecting our Nato allies from the Soviet Union threat. Oh, yeah never mind
Obviously outspending China
Obviously outspending China 10 to 1 on military arms is more important to our Tea Party friends than a balanced budget or feeding children.
Charlie, where did you get
Charlie, where did you get that, or did you make it up? Tea Party supporters have said cut everything. They have said close overseas bases. They have not said keep the wars going. So, please give us your source.
Pat, we,re protecting Belgium
Pat, we,re protecting Belgium from Luxemburg.
John, I haven't heard one
John, I haven't heard one word from the Tea party about deep cuts to military spending. Everything is tied to the gradual pull back for the two wars. I'm thinking a 50% cut in military spending is long over due. As a few posts have mentioned, just who are we protecting with these bases? I also heard today that one of our spy planes is causing boarder toubles over China. Is this the new enemy for our military complex?
On the bright side; Are You
On the bright side; Are You Ready for Some FOOTBALL?
From today's Wall Street Journal sports blog "The Daily Fix"
One of the more timely aspects of the lockout ending is its surprisingly close parallel to the national debt crisis. While Robert Kraft was openly hoping that the NFL negotiations could teach politicians a lesson on how to come together, Republicans and Democrats were still stuck without an agreement on Capitol Hill. The similarities were not lost on many writers. “A tragedy was averted in Washington today, with a historic breakthrough between two opposing sides who’ve been deadlocked for months, with billions of dollars at stake,” Rick Klein of ABC News writes. “Negotiations worked – in football, that is.” The New Yorker’s Ian Crouch heaped on more of the same, recognizing the similarities but taking some comfort in at least one set of negotiations being successful. “While the country wanders its way closer to default,” Crouch writes, “at least there will be pro football to distract us.”
Shoot, maybe the NFL owners ought to work Congress over, they know how to arm wrestle massive egos.
In the NFL, there are truly
In the NFL, there are truly only two constituencies -- the players and the owners. The fewer stakeholders negotiators are accountable to, the easier it is to bargain.
In Congress, the leaders of the two political parties are accountable to numerous and innumerable constituencies, generally known as "special interests," and no one is accountable to the constituency once affectionately known as "the people."
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD-lFCsYOPs]
Charlie, nobody in the "Tea
Charlie, nobody in the "Tea Party" is saying keep the overseas bases and nobody in the administration is saying close any bases, are they? And the only one using the end of the wars as cutting the budget is Harry Reid.
You also have not heard any Tea Party member say keep current defense spending, or can you name one?
John, Jane Corwin and certain
John, Jane Corwin and certain of her supporters claimed to speak for the Tea Party, and Corwin opposed ending the wars, bringing the troops home or drawing down defense spending.
Jack Davis, whom Corwin and the GOP attacked as not being real Tea Party, did support and advocate those reductions in spending.
Howard, Corwin was not, in my
Howard, Corwin was not, in my opinion, a Tea Party member. But my question to Charlie should have been can he name anyone in Congress who is in the Tea Party caucus who is saying not to close any bases and not to cut any, none, military spending.
Interesting is that none of our Democratic representatives in DC from NY are demanding cuts in defense spending. Of course there are a lot of jobs in NY that rely on that spending.
Do you hear any of our local Dems demanding we cut back spending at Fort Drum or at the Niagara Falls Airbase? Did any local Dem demand that new military construction in Monroe County be stopped? I must have missed it.
The anointed prophet of hope
The anointed prophet of hope and change, seated at the right hand of the father-teleprompter, Barack Hussein Obama is a left wing progressive socialist liberal masquerading as a centrist. When Barack Hussein Obama speaks of compromise, as do all rabid socialist liberals, especially the wealthy ones, it means capitulate.
Many who voted for him are now suffering from the maladies of the potions and elixirs of veiled socialism they swallowed. They think that more of the same will cure them no matter how much misery it causes.
The Democratic Party owns Obama. Their religion of tax and spend while demonizing their opponents have finally resulted in unintended consequences; trickle down poverty, record unemployment, no idea how to fix it, but only place blame (the Tea Party) along with the current national debt…their national debt.
The anointed one’s State of the Union Address was nothing more than a self-serving political campaign speech to buttress his reelection, to ensure the status quo, and to ensure the expansion of business as usual.
Howard, Corwin was not, in my
<i>Howard, Corwin was not, in my opinion, a Tea Party member. But my question to Charlie should have been can he name anyone in Congress who is in the Tea Party caucus who is saying not to close any bases and not to cut any, none, military spending.</i>
John, Paul Ryan's Budget proposal, for which every member of the Republican Caucus (and therefore all self-described Tea Party members) voted, cut every part of the Federal Government save for one: Defense. In fact, Ryan's Budget plan called for an increase in Defense Funds. It was the only part of the Federal Government that would have seen an increase under the Ryan plan.
Further, silence on the issue of cutting Defense spending does not ipso facto mean that they are open to it. It just means they haven't mentioned it...which could very well mean that they are happy to keep Defense Spending where it is.
Brandon, I guess it depends
Brandon, I guess it depends on where the information comes from. Ryan's budget did not recommend its own cuts to defense but accepts now retired Sec. Def. Gates' budget cut proposal of 78 billion. Senator Dick Durban (D) even acknowledged that, but stated that cut was not enough.
I agree that Ryan should have recommended more than 78 billion. But it is a cut, just not big enough. And the cuts Sec. Gates recommended were not based on the wars ending, they are real cuts.
I agree with you that some seem happy to keep defense spending where it is, at least in the WNY delegation to Congress.
We should just fire of all
We should just fire of all them & start over. Just comes down to who's hand is in who's pocket... It has never been about what is good for the American people. I think is was said best in this quote: "The best way to control the public is by keeping them poor & uneducated"
You beat me to it Brandon.
You beat me to it Brandon.
Richard, no one in the middle buys the politics of personal attacks. It only draws me closer to my President.
Interesting……how close,
Interesting……how close, Charlie?
http://youtu.be/Jr9pAsH-1Ao
http://youtu.be/Jr9pAsH-1Ao
watch and learn........
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Jr9pAsH-1Ao" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Richard I can't follow
Richard I can't follow people who twist the truth and stoop to personal attacks for political gain. The Republican talking points are senseless, Nancy this or Obama that, blah blah, blah.
Every single day the Republicans move further towards an intolerant religious ideology that I could never support. I'm all for smaller government but, not on the backs of our retired people or depriving people medical care.
(No subject)
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Jr9pAsH-1Ao" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Charlie, You seem to be
Charlie,
You seem to be distorting and twisting fact. The Republican plans (there are a few) have all said present retires would not be affected by any SS changes, so why do you repeat that same old lie?
Now our kids would might have to wait longer for SS, but as you now see, we can not even pay seniors their SS checks now unless we borrow the money.
Changes have to be made. And the age requirement was already changed once, under a Democrat named Carter. So it can be done again.
Richard, that may have been
Richard, that may have been the most poorly informed screed I've ever had the dubious pleasure of reading.
The American People want me to break that thing down. I know this because God told me so.
Let's get this party started:
"The anointed prophet of hope and change, seated at the right hand of the father-teleprompter, Barack Hussein Obama is a left wing progressive socialist liberal masquerading as a centrist. When Barack Hussein Obama speaks of compromise, as do all rabid socialist liberals, especially the wealthy ones, it means capitulate."
Richard opens up here with what's known in Tea Party circles as the Muslim Socialist Gambit. It's a defensively weak feint that leaves your weak side open to attack, but it can be effective against players with little to no experience. The trick here is to immediately point out that the President has a middle name that makes white Christians' inferiority complexes boil to the surface.
Most rational people will recognize that infants don't have any say in their names, middle or otherwise, and will continue to follow the logic reaching the conclusion that names aren't all that important anyway, ask Thaddeus McCotter.
This gambit happens in three phases though, and if your opponent has allowed the original move to stand, phase two can begin. This is a very short passive aggressive action where the attacker uses language meant to further reinforce Christian fears. In this case, the words were 'annointed prophet.'The desired result is to make the reader associate Barack Obama with the Anti-Christ.
Phase three of this opening gambit requires the reader to have already accepted the first two premises. This is why the Muslim Socialist Gambit is considered a rather weak rookie move in most circles. Also required is logical dissonance on the part of the reader.
Here's how it works: After having accused the President of being a Muslim pretender candidate, the writer must also infer that he is wealthy and out of touch with 'average folks.' The final thrust comes when the writer also insists that the man is a socialist. Informed people understand that wealth and religion are incompatible with the sort of socialism that they are accusing the President of, but if you've gotten your target to phase three of this gambit, he has already lost the opening.
Mr. Richmond puts a nice touch on the gambit in this instance when he infers that Obama's proposed centrist policies are simply a masquerade. Ostensibly because if those policies became law, the President would then wipe his ass with the bill then break into your house and take your hard earned money which would then either be used as toilet paper in the formerly described manner or given to other black people.
Next comes the middle game. In this case, Mr. Richmond goes with the Murdoch Middle. Observe:
"Many who voted for him are now suffering from the maladies of the potions and elixirs of veiled socialism they swallowed. They think that more of the same will cure them no matter how much misery it causes.
The Democratic Party owns Obama. Their religion of tax and spend while demonizing their opponents have finally resulted in unintended consequences; trickle down poverty, record unemployment, no idea how to fix it, but only place blame (the Tea Party) along with the current national debt…their national debt."
The Murdoch Middle is simple and is typically the only development strategy available after using the Muslim Socialist Gambit. The trick to the Murdoch Middle is to disregard the ineffectiveness of your opening gambit, add nuance to your religious file and clog the center with a real issue that can't be argued withing the context of the game thus keeping your opponent wondering where the next attack will be coming from.
Mr. Richmond seems to be a veritable virtuoso of the Murdoch Middle and, in some circles, it may make up for his rather pedestrian opening. He adds verbiage that alludes to witchcraft (another Christian no-no) while inferring that buyer's remorse from the opposition has reached some sort of boiling point.
He then masterfully inserts a quick reference to things nobody likes (unemployment and the national debt) while insinuating that the cause of both of those things is the 'demonizing' of people such as himself.
Well played, sir. Well played.
It's not over yet though. Mr. Richmond fails to finish well when he chooses to go with the Mistaken Identity End Game instead of the Double Down Draw technique. Observe:
"The anointed one’s State of the Union Address was nothing more than a self-serving political campaign speech to buttress his reelection, to ensure the status quo, and to ensure the expansion of business as usual."
If Mr. Richmond had used the Double Down, also known as old reliable, the game would have finished when the players got frustrated enough to simply leave the room and hang out with people they can actually stand.
Instead, Mistaken Identity was used. Mistaken Identity is a technique that can only be mastered with time, patience and a dedication to the absurd. It relies heavily on having won the first two stages of the game handily. In a perfect world, the Mistaken Identity would only be used if you've already reduced your opponent to a drooling mass of humanity either lying prostrate on teh floor or curled up in the fetal position, begging for an end to the madness.
Mr. Richmond is no master and his end-game falls apart when he reveals his belief that last night's speech was the 'State of the Union' (capital letters his.) This is either a rookie mistake borne of ignorance or a master's stroke borne of deception, but as I stated earlier, absurdity on this level must be preceded by a relentless and perfectly executed offense. Mr. Richmond attempted to use some components of the Double Down, but would have been netter served by immersing himself completely in one tactic or the other.
Result: The Tea Party should stick with Checkers.
John you know very well that
John you know very well that the Republican stance is to do away with Social Secrity by privatizing it (since Bush). Their platform is also pretty clear when it comes to health care, they could careless if the poor die. Obamacare is "evil" socialism, blah, blah. They chant entitlement, entitlement till my ears bleed. They can't say one thing and mean something else. Their budget developed by Mr Ryan is their blueprint. They own it and it will weigh heavy around their necks.
The Republicans laid out their plans, I give them credit for putting it out there but, they can't go back on it now. I also highly doubt their leadership would say any different in public. Do you think their new party leader Mrs Bachman would tell us something different than what I just said?
Charlie, So now you have
Charlie,
So now you have Republicans wanting kids to starve and the old to die. You either drank the cool-aid, have gone off the deep end, or more likely, just like stirring it up.
By the way, where is the Democratic Party budget? The Dems. in the Senate have failed to even present one. Obama's budget was rejected even by his own party (I believe the Senate vote was 97-0), so again, where is the alternative? You might not like Ryan's, but he is the only one to present one.
And you distort Bush's SS plan. He called for you being able to voluntarily put up to 2% of your SS tax into a private account. Since under the current system you have no money for your SS unless we borrow it (from China?), where is the Democratic plan to save SS? Oh, that's right, there is none.
John, I don't care what the
John, I don't care what the Democrats plan is. I also could careless about the Republican plan. All these plans are just senseless politics and worthless without a compromise. That is how our system works.
God bless you Chris. That was
God bless you Chris. That was a very eloquent and well written theory and/or vision. You are a true alchemist of words.
You could be a reincarnated alchemist from another life, no make that a seer or soothsayer; perhaps you are merely projecting…….
Put aside my last post and your eloquent response.
The American people need you, so please concentrate.
Close your eyes and concentrate….do whatever you do when God talks to you….tell the American people what I am thinking now.
Howard: In the NFL, there are
Howard: In the NFL, there are truly only two constituencies -- the players and the owners. The fewer stakeholders negotiators are accountable to, the easier it is to bargain.
That may be, but to me the glaring difference is both the players and the owners had "skin in the game", they both stood to profit or lose depending on the final outcome, not to mention the probability of losing big bucks if the season didn't start on time. That sense of urgency and chance of personal loss is missing from Congress. If the debt limit doesn't get raised by Aug 4 or whatever, all sorts of calamity have been predicted, but all the little piggies will still get their paychecks, their graft, their lobbyist lunches, their campaign donations, their free rides around the country, their "fact-finding" tours, their interns to chase around and if they can successfully blame the next guy - re election. I suppose the only one with much to lose is Obama, if the economy goes further south, he'll get the blame, deservedly or not. I won't miss him much on January 21, 2013, when President Paul takes over.
New Congressional Theme
New Congressional Theme Song:
"In their eyes there's something lacking, what they need is a damn good whacking"
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGnQ40SqP2Q?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><p… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGnQ40SqP2Q?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
I suppose I owe pigs an apology
After reading 50 some
After reading 50 some comments, I can certainly understand why Washington is so screwed up. I've said for years, there is only two things wrong with our government...Democrats and Republicians. (Not necessarily in that order)
John, Don’t be so hard on
John,
Don’t be so hard on Charlie. If the Democrat’s do have a plan how could Charlie possibly know what it is.
Such a plan would only be known to them and God.
The person to ask is Chris Charvella.
In his post to me Chris disclosed that God tells him things.
@Richard God told me you
@Richard
God told me you should perform an act of contrition. Donate fifty bucks to the NAACP
Posted by Dave Olsen on July
Posted by Dave Olsen on July 26, 2011 - 1:06pm
@Howard, that would mean ending both wars immediately and abrogating the Department of Homeland Security. For the record, I'm okay with that.
Me too, as a good start
I'm fine with this as well.
God told me to take the rest of the day off...do you think my boss will go for that?
@Phil God's cool with it,
@Phil God's cool with it, just tell it to your boss. Can't argue with Jesus in America these days.
That's true...he is coming
That's true...he is coming back in October, so you don't want to piss Him off now.
(No subject)
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12kcpP-8jfM&ob=av2e]
Richard, God told me that he
Richard, God told me that he was in debt negotiations with the Tea Party until yesterday. Then the speaker walked out on him too.
Charlie, Did he tell you to
Charlie,
Did he tell you to lie about not wanting to feed children ? Or wanting people to die (He told me to ask you that)?
John, the Tea Party doesn't
John, the Tea Party doesn't want people to die or starve, they just don't give a dam if they do. Entitlements are evil socialism.
John, that's bullcrap. God
John, that's bullcrap. God wants us to feed old people. The kids are on their own.
@Brandon your taste in music
@Brandon your taste in music is excellent. We need to hang out and drink beer sometime.
God apparently told John
God apparently told John Boehner it's OK to lie to the American people about cutting spending.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/boehner-plan-doesnt-cut-spending/
John, you don't seriously
John, you don't seriously believe Tea Party members believe everyone has a right to eat and get medical care, do you? The Tea Party is more of a survival of the richest cult. This idea that they care about Social Security is more damage control then reality.
As for Social Security being easy to cut off for people my age, that is not going to work. Sure, I'll be fine but, from what I heard the average 401k plan holds about $25K. Just who exactly is going to stand for deep cuts to the system? Sounds like the greedy Tea Party needs to help raise the rates now to cover the program.
Charlie, Again, where do you
Charlie,
Again, where do you get your proof they don't care? They might not want the massive give aways we have now (My favorite examples are the free cell phones or the right to Viagra), but that does not mean they don't care just because they have the audacity to disagree with you. And yesterday you did say they wanted people to die.
By the way, how would you define social "entitlements"? Are you saying you are entitled to that money, it's your right to have others money? Social Security as an example, is taking your money to give it to somebody else. You hope when the time comes the government can take money from somebody else and give it to you, or can borrow it like they do now and have somebody else pay the loan back, with interest.
Does anyone know when something like Social Security went from a social safety net and tax policy to an entitlement?
Compromise.
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbrn9eXEKWk&feature=fvsr]
Compromise.
One random observation over
One random observation over the years: former heavy pot smokers inevitably manifest self-affirming dialogue with Jesus. This discussion bears remarkable similarity to some of epiphanies of weed-to-Jesus turnarounds I've known.
Little known fact: God was
Little known fact: God was actually a member of the Anti-Masonic Party...
Of course, that movement and all of its members are long dead.
@Chris - I'm always up for a beer with a fellow Bad Religion fan.
The bartender at the Village
The bartender at the Village Inn in Oakfield used to think I was a God. Everytime I walked in the front door he would yell, "Jesus Christ! Are you here again?"
Jesus, his daddy and Casper the Holy Ghost all endorse their gift of weed to the ill and ailing (that's everyone)and wish the hellhounds would back off before they have to smite them with ten more days in the triple digits.
George is why you need a like
George is why you need a like button, Howard
I liked George's comment so
I liked George's comment so much I got all click happy and double-posted
I'm wearing my Ramble 2011
I'm wearing my Ramble 2011 T-Shirt right now, I have connections. The first thing I did was rip the tag out, it was making my neck itch. It, along with my Batavian sweatshirt comprise 2/3 of my wardrobe year round and that's the way I like it. It breaks my heart when I read an obit for a guy my age, I'm too young to die old. People need more chill time and it looks like it is going away.
John, actually I said "John
John, actually I said
"John you know very well that the Republican stance is to do away with Social Secrity by privatizing it (since Bush). Their platform is also pretty clear when it comes to health care, they could careless if the poor die. Obamacare is "evil" socialism, blah, blah. They chant entitlement, entitlement till my ears bleed. They can't say one thing and mean something else. Their budget developed by Mr Ryan is their blueprint. They own it and it will weigh heavy around their necks."
Then you said "so now have Republicans wanting kids to starve and the old to die"
I have now said a couple of times, I don't believe that Tea Party members want kids to starve and the old to die. They just could careless if they do. They have a survival of the fittest mentality. They are also the ones who chant entitlement, not me. Attacking the poor is a religion to these people.
Charlie, I didn't know all
Charlie, I didn't know all the Tea Party members were rich. That should be good news to them.
John, I'm pretty sure I've
John, I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but you have an uncanny knack for making things up and missing the point entirely.
Chris, I get the point. It's
Chris,
I get the point. It's called demonizing the other side because you disagree with them. You hint they want people to starve or just die. You say they don't care and hint they are all rich and racist. And the ones who demonize don't like to get called out on it.
On your other blog, a guy named Eric called all Tea Party members racist. You did not make any attempt to correct it, you let it stand unchallenged.
Of course, it's your blog, so you can just let it go as his personal opinion or you could have said something. Then and again, you might agree with him.
John seems to think I've
John seems to think I've hacked Charlie Mallow's Batavian account.
I respond to people who directly address me. Also if I was at a Tea Party Rally with a paintball gun and randomly fired 100 rounds, I'd hit 90 racists. Take it to the bank.
Chris, you must be a bad
Chris, you must be a bad shot. Get to the range and get some practice.
John, how do you explain the
John, how do you explain the groups outright hatred of Obama? From my point of view his presidency is strongly remisent of Bush's. They both use the military without a second thought. Give tax breaks to the rich. Kept the prison in Cuba open, patriot act, and are strong proponents of the war on terror. They both spent money like drunken sailors, bailing out the banks and giant corporations. They both have also expressed an interest in cutting Social Security. Many of us wonder where the hatred for Obama comes from when there is so little change we can see.
What I see is a bunch of people in Washington with identical policies, fighting each other over who gets to sit in the big chair.
No, Charlie, the other ten
No, Charlie, the other ten were just drunk and thought they were attending a NASCAR race.
Charlie, now I can agree with
Charlie, now I can agree with you. There has been very little to no change in how both Obama and Bush ran/run things.
And I see very little difference between the hate for Bush, that still pops up, and the hate shown by some for Obama.
Ok John, it looks like we
Ok John, it looks like we will have to end the night with some agreement. ( unlike the losers in Washington) Bush was treated badly by some and it was over the top at times.
Posted by Chris Charvella on
Posted by Chris Charvella on July 27, 2011 - 2:08pm
@Brandon your taste in music is excellent. We need to hang out and drink beer sometime.
Can i come? Noone ever wants to drink beer with me any more, probably the snoring.
Posted by George Richardson
Posted by George Richardson on July 27, 2011 - 2:46pm
The bartender at the Village Inn in Oakfield used to think I was a God. Everytime I walked in the front door he would yell, "Jesus Christ! Are you here again?"
I may not be thought of as a god, but I have the body of a god, unfortunately that god is Buddah.
Still think the Tea Party
Still think the Tea Party isn't racist? Here's some science that says they are...of course Tea Baggers don't believe in science...
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/25/are-tea-partiers-racist.html