Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 450
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    I guess your ego is tiny in comparison then?!?
    Are you still upset because I thought you were older than davidra?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sure you are. Just ask you.
    I think your absurd sniping at Obama is really tiresome. The Sestak thing is just plain nothing, except another chance for republitards to show their hypocrisy by saying, oh no, we have NEVER done anything like this before. Please.
    Meanwhile, someone actually did come up with a great solution for the oil leak on Facebook. Unfortunately I can't post a link to a Facebook page, but there are over 23,000 fans so far.

    The proposal: plugging the Gulf oil leak with the works of Ayn Rand. As the website states so well:
    Sooooo....I'm supposed to stop because you are tired of people not bowing down to Obama? Get real davidra. You have no way of explaining that Obama is just another Chicago politician....not some new kind of politician that he tried to get everyone to think he was. I can understand how you might be frustrated on getting completely fooled by another slick politician. I hope one day we do have a different kind of politician run for Prez...but...it's become clear that he ain't it. But don't hold your breath about me changing my opinion of him....unless you really feel compelled to hold your breath.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Sooooo....I'm supposed to stop because you are tired of people not bowing down to Obama? Get real davidra. You have no way of explaining that Obama is just another Chicago politician....not some new kind of politician that he tried to get everyone to think he was. I can understand how you might be frustrated on getting completely fooled by another slick politician. I hope one day we do have a different kind of politician run for Prez...but...it's become clear that he ain't it. But don't hold your breath about me changing my opinion of him....unless you really feel compelled to hold your breath.

    What makes you think I was fooled? Isn't it possible I just agreed with his priority list? Mostly, whether or not you can be a change agent as president depends on how much support you get from congress. Because of the lockstep republican effort to destroy anything he tries to do, and the fact that a few in his own party were willing to go along with them, he has not had the opportunity to even attempt significant change....and yet, he is the first person to make substantive changes in the health care system since Johnson; he is withdrawing troops from Iraq; he is stopping DADT, yada yada yada. He's done exactly what I expected him to do, given the crapstorm he was handed on his way into the office. I never doubted for a minute he was a politician, and politicians do what they need to do to get their agenda through. He was elected by a fine majority of the populace, and he's doing what he needs to do to get things done. Don't like his methods? Tough toenails. I didn't like W's either.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    What makes you think I was fooled? Isn't it possible I just agreed with his priority list? Mostly, whether or not you can be a change agent as president depends on how much support you get from congress. Because of the lockstep republican effort to destroy anything he tries to do, and the fact that a few in his own party were willing to go along with them, he has not had the opportunity to even attempt significant change....and yet, he is the first person to make substantive changes in the health care system since Johnson; he is withdrawing troops from Iraq; he is stopping DADT, yada yada yada. He's done exactly what I expected him to do, given the crapstorm he was handed on his way into the office. I never doubted for a minute he was a politician, and politicians do what they need to do to get their agenda through. He was elected by a fine majority of the populace, and he's doing what he needs to do to get things done. Don't like his methods? Tough toenails. I didn't like W's either.
    Whew.....finally....you admit he is a liar and a hypocrite. If you weren't "fooled" by his saying he was going to change the way politics worked in DC, then you obviously knew that he was lying. Good job davidra! Geez, like pulling teeth to get you to admit the guy was lying. The sad part is you seem to be fine with that. In fact, I think you were bragging that he is such a good liar. Nice!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I never doubted for a minute he was a politician, and politicians do what they need to do to get their agenda through.
    So much for "hope and change" eh?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. pebacher's Avatar
    Posts
    76 Posts
    Global Posts
    82 Global Posts
    #86  
    Why are these political posts on the Pre forum? Please take this somewhere else!!
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Whew.....finally....you admit he is a liar and a hypocrite. If you weren't "fooled" by his saying he was going to change the way politics worked in DC, then you obviously knew that he was lying. Good job davidra! Geez, like pulling teeth to get you to admit the guy was lying. The sad part is you seem to be fine with that. In fact, I think you were bragging that he is such a good liar. Nice!
    I don't recall saying he was a liar. As usual you feel obligated to put words in my mouth, and as usual they are incorrect. If you think things haven't changed at all, you aren't looking closely.For a start, you can look toward Iraq, and the health care of the future. You may not consider those to represent change, but I do...and so do most of the people that voted for him. I also don't feel he was a hypocrite. I think he was and is a politician....and a good one at that. Have we had any elected officials in the past 150 years that weren't? Has there been an elected official ever that said they were going to keep things exactly as they have been? Did you think he was found under a cabbage leaf? Seems to me you were the naive one, but that's not surprising. Anyone who can swallow the true lies of the past administration is overwhelmingly naive. Having said all that, I firmly believe that if Obama had even the slightest bit of support from the republicans, things would have been very different...and very much better for all. But you have fallen back into your "I don't hate him, I don't even know him...(but I hate everything he stands for and there is nothing he can do that is good) mode. Not surprising.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So much for "hope and change" eh?
    I got exactly the changes I had hoped for. I just hope there are even more coming.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'll say it. Ayn Rand was brilliant. Guess that makes me one of the "stupid people".
    Just can't help myself, I guess.

    1585: Objectivist Overruled

    Objectivist: Why not? What do you dislike about Objectivism?
    Me: Well, there’s the fact that Ayn Rand sucks and Objectivists are ****heads. But other than that, nothing. I mean, I guess I like words that start with “o.” Anyway, let me ask you this: if I asked you to name an a-ha song besides “Ta—
    Objectivist: You mean you don’t think there are any good points in Rand?!
    Me: Sure, there are good points in Rand. Or there would be, if I had never heard of Nietzsche. But since everything good in Rand is ripped off from Nietzsche, and everything in Rand that is not ripped off from Nietzsche is ********, why don’t you just read Nietzsche?
    Objectivist: I tried, because I liked the idea of it’s being about special people who are better than everyone else, but then I saw that when Nietzsche does it, it’s more an existentialist description of the way humanity advances itself, wherein even the gifted individual eternally struggles to obtain fulfillment from a world where, although nothing is wholly condemned, neither is anything wholly justified. Plus he includes artists, which is faggy.
    Me: So basically, you read Rand because Rand tells you that you’re perfect the way you are and society is unfair to you. But isn’t this supposedly what you guys hate most about P.C.? That it allows unenlightened people to bask in self-satisfaction instead of working to improve themselves?
    Objectivist: Sure, but there’s a big difference.
    Me: How so?
    Objectivist: P.C. is when other people do that, but Objectivism is when I do it. Duh.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I don't recall saying he was a liar. As usual you feel obligated to put words in my mouth, and as usual they are incorrect. If you think things haven't changed at all, you aren't looking closely.For a start, you can look toward Iraq, and the health care of the future. You may not consider those to represent change, but I do...and so do most of the people that voted for him. I also don't feel he was a hypocrite. I think he was and is a politician....and a good one at that. Have we had any elected officials in the past 150 years that weren't? Has there been an elected official ever that said they were going to keep things exactly as they have been? Did you think he was found under a cabbage leaf? Seems to me you were the naive one, but that's not surprising. Anyone who can swallow the true lies of the past administration is overwhelmingly naive. Having said all that, I firmly believe that if Obama had even the slightest bit of support from the republicans, things would have been very different...and very much better for all. But you have fallen back into your "I don't hate him, I don't even know him...(but I hate everything he stands for and there is nothing he can do that is good) mode. Not surprising.
    Good grief davidra, why would Republicans support a socialist agenda? Are you under the impression that when one party wins the Presidency, the other party must bow down (or bend over) and do whatever the other side wants, no matter how disastrous it might be for the country? When Obama loses in 2012, will you expect the democrats to go run over to do whatever the Republicans want, or will you want them (your democrat representatives) to stand for what you believe in?....aka, socialism.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I got exactly the changes I had hoped for. I just hope there are even more coming.
    Please....please....no more "change". If we have too many more of these changes, we'll wake up one morning and think we woke up in Europe. And for the life of me I can't figure out why some people in this country want us to be Europe. We are headed right down the path that the Greeks went down....thanks for the change.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Good grief davidra, why would Republicans support a socialist agenda?
    I don't think that word means what you think it means.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I don't think that word means what you think it means.
    No....I'm right on track with it....although....what Obama and his gang want may actually be worse....so maybe you do have a point there. You do know there are different levels of socialism. Anyway, seems like we've been down this road before where everyone throws out their definitions of socialism and I'm just not getting caught up in that. But I'll stick to using the word to describe Obama's policies and where he wants to take the country.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    No....I'm right on track with it....although....what Obama and his gang want may actually be worse....so maybe you do have a point there. You do know there are different levels of socialism. Anyway, seems like we've been down this road before where everyone throws out their definitions of socialism and I'm just not getting caught up in that. But I'll stick to using the word to describe Obama's policies and where he wants to take the country.
    I think you should. It just reinforces the fact that you lack the ability to discern what real socialism is, and that you just want to use an incorrect description because it makes you feel good. Go for it. We expect it.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I think you should. It just reinforces the fact that you lack the ability to discern what real socialism is, and that you just want to use an incorrect description because it makes you feel good. Go for it. We expect it.
    No....just another example of when someone has a different opinion than yours, you puff your chest out and make it sound like you know everything. I've read the definitions of socialism, and the definitions I read are dead on with where I BELIEVE (you don't have to believe, that is your choice) Obama wants to lead this country. You disagree....you have that choice....and you believe the man is all kumbaya and wonderful, and I have the choice to believe otherwise. Geez you guys are quite gullable....but whatever....I would expect nothing less. LOL....sucka. I just wonder what you guys would be saying if the oil accident and the attempted bribery in a Senate race had occured under Bush....holy cow....it would be enough to bring Kennedy back from the grave.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    No....just another example of when someone has a different opinion than yours, you puff your chest out and make it sound like you know everything. I've read the definitions of socialism, and the definitions I read are dead on with where I BELIEVE (you don't have to believe, that is your choice) Obama wants to lead this country. You disagree....you have that choice....and you believe the man is all kumbaya and wonderful, and I have the choice to believe otherwise. Geez you guys are quite gullable....but whatever....I would expect nothing less. LOL....sucka. I just wonder what you guys would be saying if the oil accident and the attempted bribery in a Senate race had occured under Bush....holy cow....it would be enough to bring Kennedy back from the grave.
    Like I said...nothing unexpected here. Your level of hypocrisy continues when you use terms like "bribery" and "socialism" when they are patently false. How can I tell? Because Karl Rove would be in jail if bribery was defined as you say it is. But of course....you're wrong again.

    In discussing Sestak allegations, did Rove admit to committing a crime?

    May 25, 2010 12:23 am ET by Matt Gertz
    This evening on On the Record, Fox News political analyst Karl Rove weighed in on Rep. Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a job by the Obama administration in order to convince him to drop out of the Senate race in Pennsylvania. Among other allegations, Rove asserts that the Obama administration may have violated "18 U.S.C. 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering, a government employee, interfering with the nomination or election for office":

    A few points. First of all, if Rove's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 595 is accurate, he is probably guilty of violating it in his past role as White House advisor to President Bush.
    From an April 19, 2001, Minneapolis Star Tribune article (emphasis added, accessed via Nexis) :
    Minnesota House Majority Leader Tim Pawlenty said Wednesday that he won't run for the U.S. Senate in 2002, but only because Vice President **** Cheney called him on his cell phone earlier in the morning and urged him not to challenge St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman for the Republican nomination.
    Pawlenty's dramatic last-minute decision is the latest development in an extraordinary intervention by the White House and President Bush on behalf of Coleman, who was chairman of the Bush presidential campaign in the state.
    The White House's intense interest in the race is a reflection of the 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.
    It may also signal a keen interest by Bush for Republicans to win the seat held by Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., who has been among the president's most severe critics.
    On Tuesday night, White House political strategist Karl Rove called Pawlenty and urged him not to run. Pawlenty said he was still intending to begin an exploratory candidacy after the Rove call.
    But the request from Cheney, which came as Pawlenty was returning from a dentist's office with his daughters, was impossible to resist.
    "On behalf of the president and the vice president of the United States, [Cheney] asked that I not go forward. . . . For the good of the party, for the good of the effort [against Wellstone] I agreed not to pursue an exploratory campaign," Pawlenty said at a news conference.
    At the White House, a spokesman for Bush confirmed that Cheney made the call, but he declined to elaborate.
    "I guess from our end, we would consider that conversation private," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.
    But he said that Bush, Cheney and Rove have discussed the Minnesota race and that Coleman has strong support in the White House.
    "Norm Coleman is a respected leader who worked very hard for President Bush during the campaign as his Minnesota chairman, and because of that, he has many friends in this administration," Stanzel said.
    Similarly, from the October 30, 2002, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (accessed from Nexis):
    Rove has thrust himself into targeted races with a characteristic take-no-prisoners style. He has recruited candidates, lobbied state lawmakers for favorable congressional redistricting plans, coordinated fund-raising and propelled Bush onto an exhaustive travel schedule to help Republican candidates.
    [...]
    Rove helped recruit Cornyn for the Senate race and, according to one source who requested anonymity for fear of being fired, insisted that the Republican national party allocate more than $2 million to the Texas race after GOP officials considered using the money in tighter contests. Rove also calls back to Texas with periodic advice, but Cornyn strategists say Rove does not play a dominant role in the campaign.
    [...]
    Rove urged U.S. Rep. John Thune to abandon a governor's race to take on Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson in South Dakota. He has also been active in marshaling White House support behind Republican candidates in Missouri, Georgia and other toss-up races.
    The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder further reports that "after Rep. Ben Gilman found his congressional district eliminated by redistricting in 2002, the White House tried to persuade him from challenging another Republican congressman in another district by considering him for an administration position."

    Please. Grow up. Stop throwing your inappropriately defined terms around as if they mean something. They don't.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Like I said...nothing unexpected here. Your level of hypocrisy continues when you use terms like "bribery" and "socialism" when they are patently false. How can I tell? Because Karl Rove would be in jail if bribery was defined as you say it is. But of course....you're wrong again.




    Please. Grow up. Stop throwing your inappropriately defined terms around as if they mean something. They don't.
    The difference I see is that I don't see where another job was offered to induce the person to not run. It appears that Obama/Clinton dangled another job in front of Sestak.....I don't see where Pawlenty said another job was offered to get him to change his mind, simply that they urged him not to run. I don't think anyone has said that Obama and team couldn't talk to anyone, it's the "if you don't run, we might have another job for you" wink, wink. Maybe I missed the other job offered in the above article. Please point out where the bribe was. In the mean time, how about you grow up and finally admit the Obama administration is failing on one of his primary campaign promises, changing DC politics as usual. The dude will say whatever it takes to move his socialist agenda (oops, there's that word you don't like).

    Also interesting how the article you site, says "Sestak's claim that he was offered a job", as if he might be lying about it....well....Obama's gang has already admitted they did when they sent ole Clinton to offer the job. The media, as usual, doesn't want to admit that Obama is nothing but politics as usual....ROFL....change we can count on.....what a joke. And you, doc, are the real hypocrite.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    The difference I see is that I don't see where another job was offered to induce the person to not run. It appears that Obama/Clinton dangled another job in front of Sestak.....I don't see where Pawlenty said another job was offered to get him to change his mind, simply that they urged him not to run. I don't think anyone has said that Obama and team couldn't talk to anyone, it's the "if you don't run, we might have another job for you" wink, wink. Maybe I missed the other job offered in the above article. Please point out where the bribe was. In the mean time, how about you grow up and finally admit the Obama administration is failing on one of his primary campaign promises, changing DC politics as usual. The dude will say whatever it takes to move his socialist agenda (oops, there's that word you don't like).

    Also interesting how the article you site, says "Sestak's claim that he was offered a job", as if he might be lying about it....well....Obama's gang has already admitted they did when they sent ole Clinton to offer the job. The media, as usual, doesn't want to admit that Obama is nothing but politics as usual....ROFL....change we can count on.....what a joke. And you, doc, are the real hypocrite.
    Don't worry...there are plenty of other examples.

    The practice that Issa objects to is common and not unusual.

    Now, trading an administration job -- a thing of value -- for a political favor might well constitute bribery. It is also very common. A Nexus search turns up numerous examples. In 1981, President Reagan offered S.I. Hayakawa, then California's senior senator, a job if he declined to run for reelection. We know this because Reagan's chief political adviser admitted as much on the record.

    In 1997, then-Massachusetts Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger negotiated a Justice Department post while he decided whether to run for governor. The Clinton White House did not want him to make that bid -- they wanted to clear the field for Rep. Joe Kennedy.

    (Remember when William Weld was nominated to ambassador to Mexico? Same reason, same motivation. Jesse Helms scuttled this, but for reasons having nothing to do with presidential political interference.)

    More recently, after Rep. Ben Gilman found his congressional district eliminated by redistricting in 2002, the White House tried to persuade him from challenging another Republican congressman in another district by considering him for an administration position. Karl Rove repeatedly intervened in Republican primaries. And Tim Pawlenty is not a senator because Rove urged him to run for governor instead.
    And please, feel free to use any terms you want in order to demonstrate that you lack the ability to discern what kinds of government exist outside of South Carolina. It confirms the fact that you are using a factually incorrect simplistic term because it's easier for you and your friends to grasp. But hey, I'm sure you know much better than actual socialists, right? At least you think you do, and as usual, you are wrong.

    "Socialized health care" is on its way. The "socialist agenda" is taking over America. And best of all, Barack Obama, a "committed socialist ideologue," is in the Oval Office.
    But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.
    "We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."
    Are many Americans secret socialists?
    Obama's opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton.
    "He's the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans."
    He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.
    "It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is."
    Definitions of socialism vary, but most socialists believe workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own or control them.

    Why socialists hate Obama's health care bill
    Those who call Obama a socialist, though, point to his policies. Big on their hit list: "Obamacare," which they call "socialized medicine."
    Socialists scoff at the notion. They don't applaud the passage of the recent health care bill either. They wanted a national "single-payer" health insurance plan with a government option. The bill that Obama championed didn't have any of those features.


    Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change -- something a socialist wouldn't accept.
    "Most of it was authored by the health care industry," Wharton says. "I call it the corporate restructuring of health care."
    Other critics point to Obama's Wall Street bailout -- which actually had its roots in the Bush administration. Critics say it's socialistic for government to assume control of private industry.
    Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says the bailout had nothing to do with socialism.
    Llewellyn says a socialist leader would have at least nationalized some of the troubled banks.
    "He gave them [the banks] too much with no strings attached," Llewellyn says. "Banks that were too big to fail are bigger, and they can still fail."
    How about Obama's bailout of the Detroit auto industry? During the bailout, the federal government assumed partial ownership of General Motors.
    "It's not socialism," Llewellyn says. "The mere fact that the government owns something or has a stake in it, doesn't make it socialist. If that was true, you would say that we have a socialist army. The government owns the army."


    Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them? - CNN.com
  19. #99  
    Well....here is the law as best I can find it:

    18 U.S.C. § 600 -- Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.

    Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.


    So, unless this is no longer a law, or unless I found the wrong one (possible), I don't see how what they did wasn't a violation of the law. Now, if the defense of breaking this law is "it's done all the time", I guess not much can be said regarding that except that maybe this law should be abolished if it isn't going to be enforced. I will go on record as saying that if any administration did this, it was a violation of the law. The part you, davidra, seem to completely ignore is the point that Obama was supposed to run an administration that was above all this. Do you deny that he ran on this? Do you deny that he said this: ''My belief is that the American people are looking for a fundamental break from the way we've been doing business.'' (Obama says Hillary Clinton offers politics as usual :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: 44: Barack Obama)

    And you seem to act as if I'm the only one that believes that what they did was against the law, or that he is just "politics as usual". Go google or bing "Obama on Politics as usual". I don't seem to be alone on this idea. YOU may believe breaking the law is fine if it is a democrat, but something tells me you'd be taking a different stance if this was a Republican. It once again takes me back to what I've said about the good doc for quite some time....different standards depending upon your political party. But....as someone said in here before....at least you don't hide that you are extremely biased.

    Not sure if you have children or not, but must have been a great house to be raised in. When little Johnnie did anything wrong, all he had to say was "But Stevie did it to Dad and he didn't get in trouble."

    Oh....ROFL....still not changing my OPINION that Obama is leading us down the road towards socialism. Sorry doc, and I'm not alone on that opinion either. You have YOUR opinion, and I have MY opinion. They differ....get over it. At least to this point, I can't be arrested for saying it....although....give Obama time....it may be illegal at some point in the future to criticize the Prez.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....here is the law as best I can find it:

    I will go on record as saying that if any administration did this, it was a violation of the law. The part you, davidra, seem to completely ignore is the point that Obama was supposed to run an administration that was above all this. Do you deny that he ran on this? Do you deny that he said this: ''My belief is that the American people are looking for a fundamental break from the way we've been doing business.'' (Obama says Hillary Clinton offers politics as usual :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: 44: Barack Obama)

    And you seem to act as if I'm the only one that believes that what they did was against the law, or that he is just "politics as usual". Go google or bing "Obama on Politics as usual". I don't seem to be alone on this idea. YOU may believe breaking the law is fine if it is a democrat, but something tells me you'd be taking a different stance if this was a Republican. It once again takes me back to what I've said about the good doc for quite some time....different standards depending upon your political party. But....as someone said in here before....at least you don't hide that you are extremely biased.
    Oh....ROFL....still not changing my OPINION that Obama is leading us down the road towards socialism. Sorry doc, and I'm not alone on that opinion either. You have YOUR opinion, and I have MY opinion. They differ....get over it. At least to this point, I can't be arrested for saying it....although....give Obama time....it may be illegal at some point in the future to criticize the Prez.
    Well, then clearly, based on what I posted, the previous administration broke the law. Thanks for agreeing to that.

    Obama is clearly "doing business" very differently than Bush. All depends on what you mean by "doing business". Since you seem to want to fall back on "we just have different opinions", I guess that makes your misstatements correct. Obama has not cherry-picked favorable intelligence and used it as an excuse to invade a country that had not harmed us. Obama did not pack his cabinet with those beholden to special interests and had forbidden administration officials to take subsequent jobs with the industry they oversee. His budgets are actually honest, even though that makes the situation seem worse for his administration:

    WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.



    The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.
    But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.
    Even with bigger deficit projections, the Obama administration will put the country on “a sustainable fiscal course” by the end of Mr. Obama’s term, Peter R. Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Thursday in an interview. Mr. Orszag did not provide details of how the administration would reduce a deficit expected to reach at least $1.5 trillion this year.
    Mr. Obama’s banishment of the gimmicks, which have been widely criticized, is in keeping with his promise to run a more transparent government.
    Fiscal sleight of hand has long been a staple of federal budgets, giving rise to phrases like “rosy scenario” and “magic asterisks.”
    The $2.7 trillion in additional deficit spending, Mr. Orszag said, is “a huge amount of money that would just be kind of a magic asterisk in previous budgets.”
    “The president prefers to tell the truth,” he said, “rather than make the numbers look better by pretending.”
    Recent presidents and Congresses were complicit in the ploy involving the alternative minimum tax. While that tax was intended to hit the wealthiest taxpayers, it was not indexed for inflation. That fact and the tax breaks of the Bush years have meant that it could affect millions of middle-class taxpayers.
    If they paid it, the government would get billions of dollars more in tax revenues, which is what past budgets have projected. But it would also probably mean a taxpayer revolt. So each year the White House and Congress agree to “patch” the alternative tax for inflation, and the extra revenues never materialize.
    Nearly $70 billion of the just-enacted $787 billion economic recovery plan reflected the bookkeeping cost of adjusting the alternative tax for a year.
    The White House budget office calculates that over the next decade, the tax would add $1.2 trillion in revenues. But Mr. Obama is not counting those revenues, and he is adding $218 billion to the 10-year deficit projections to reflect the added interest the government would pay for its extra debt.
    As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.
    For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.
    Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.
    He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

    In other words, his degree of transparency is an order of magnitude greater than the previous adminstration. So you go ahead and misuse terms like "bribery" and "socialism". There have been significant improvements in the way government is practiced, and one or two situations like the Sestak charade will not change these significant improvements. Stop looking for the cheap shot and expand your limited view. I know that's a challenge for you, but go ahead, give it a try.
Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions