Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

20 days left, and then the voters will finally have a say to all these trillion dollar spending bills, taxes, national health care and cap & trade energy policies that Obama and the democrat congress crammed down our throat.

So here we are in October 2010 with double digit unemployment. There's no sign of economic recovery and we're about to be hit with the biggest tax increase since WWII. Conservatives are not surprised at this. This is what we've been saying Obama will bring while he was just an idiot out there promising hope and change on the campaign trails. The final 2 years of his presidency is going to suck for him because congress will finally tell him "NO". And if BO's earlier monsters like obamacare are not out right repealed, they will probably die from lack of funds.

How bad will it be for dems? Even B. Clinton's former pollster Douglas Shoen says "you're looking at the potential for the Republicans to win both houses of Congress and holding 30 or more governors' seats. We're looking at a landslide of potentially epic proportions".

Political analysts say that the Republicans will win the Senate, capturing seats in Indiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Washington state, Illinois and Nevada. And they could prevail in New York, Connecticut, Delaware and California to boot.

The GOP will capture the House by a good margin, winning upward of at least 60-plus seats now held by Democrats.

This is going to be fun!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ

[Amy]

Does any American on these forums REALLY want these right-wing nuts, with their massive anti-LGBT agenda to have any more control than they currently do (Like blocking bills which are PART OF THEIR OWN MANIFESTO just because the other party is pushing them)?

Good luck when you need to use an overseas proxy to get to this site.

And as for national healthcare - I'll stay in a country where my taxes pay for SRS, instead of tax breaks for billionaires, thanks.

[smc]

Nothing like the ahistorical perspective to brighten a day and restore one's faith in the American people.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Amy

Does any American on these forums REALLY want these right-wing nuts, with their massive anti-LGBT agenda to have any more control than they currently do

BO hasn't come out in favor of gay marriage either. And it doesn't have to be the right wing nuts. The political spectrum doesn't just go left and right. Vote conservative libertarian. It is actually possible to have someone who believes in limited government that doesn't want the government's nose in your personal affairs. In fact... those two things kind of go hand in hand no? There is a huge grassroots uprising prompted by BO's madness that isn't necessarily aligned with the republican party.

Originally Posted by Amy

(Like blocking bills which are PART OF THEIR OWN MANIFESTO just because the other party is pushing them)?

Bills which were full of things they could not support as well.

Originally Posted by Amy

Good luck when you need to use an overseas proxy to get to this site.

What's this about?

Originally Posted by Amy

And as for national healthcare - I'll stay in a country where my taxes pay for SRS, instead of tax breaks for billionaires, thanks.

National health care would probably be a nice thing to have... AS LONG AS it's at least up to the quality we have now, and we can afford it. When national health care and the other stimulus packages are threatening the stability of the dollar it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

[franalexes]

Tracy, I'm with you. There won't be a massive change in taxes or laws. That won't happen. The activists on the right should not be feared. They are just leaning hard on the rudder, but they are few. The result will be enough to get a right turn. Obama has shown his true colors; and it ain't pretty.

[randolph]

If the Repubs succeed in taking over the Gov with massive funding from foreign interests then its over for the middle class. We will be sweeping the floors of the mansions of the rich. We will have a Plutocracy. Blackwater types will be used to suppress any opposition. This will be great for gun lovers. Like the Taliban, they can cruise the streets in Humvees to enforce compliance. Gays, transsexuals, atheists and all others that do not fit the Sarah Palin vision of a pure America will be marginalized. When the blackwaters show up at my door, I will be fully loaded and ready for them.

Liberals of the world unite!

http://pol.moveon.org/republicorp_or...73-HAMxZnx&t=4

[Amy]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

National health care would probably be a nice thing to have... AS LONG AS it's at least up to the quality we have now, and we can afford it.

Well, couldn't make it much lower.

WHO figures on quality of healthcare by country show a definite trend:

Socialised Healthcare
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
33 Chile
34 Denmark
36 Costa Rica


SEMI-socialised/privatised
6 Singapore
10 Japan
24 Cyprus
28 Israel
32 Australia
35 Dominica
37 United States of America

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

When national health care and the other stimulus packages are threatening the stability of the dollar it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Oh, indeed. Like doing stuff such as taking the entire social security surplus of over 2 trillion dollars which would be enough to cover the next few decades and...spending it...on the...armed forces...?

Or giving the rich tax cuts so they can invest more money in China and India and get rid of more American jobs?

Damn right stuff like that needs to be dealt with to prevent harming your economy.

[franalexes]

I find it amazing that foriegners act as the experts on American government.

Explain please why Cleveland, Ohio is the medical center of choice for Canada.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by randolph

If the Repubs succeed in taking over the Gov with massive funding from foreign interests then its over for the middle class. We will be sweeping the floors of the mansions of the rich. We will have a Plutocracy. Blackwater types will be used to suppress any opposition. This will be great for gun lovers. Like the Taliban, they can cruise the streets in Humvees to enforce compliance. Gays, transsexuals, atheists and all others that do not fit the Sarah Palin vision of a pure America will be marginalized. When the blackwaters show up at my door, I will be fully loaded and ready for them.

Liberals of the world unite!

http://pol.moveon.org/republicorp_or...73-HAMxZnx&t=4

I think you forget that it was the Obama admin' that used the IRS to silence Joe the plumber.

[The Conquistador]

Expanding government is the problem here. Alot of the problems we have now are due to increasing fed meddling in affairs that should have been handled by the states or by people themselves.

Anyone who thinks it is about Republicans versus Democrats or Liberals versus Conservatives are either blind or ignorant of what is going on. Repubs or Dems; they are just two different faces of the same shitheap.

[randolph]

It mystifies me why conservatives love to be screwed by Republicans but scream to high heaven when screwed by Democrats.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by randolph

It mystifies me why conservatives love to be screwed by Republicans but scream to high heaven when screwed by Democrats.

I love getting screwed too.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by tslust

I love getting screwed too.

Are big cocked Democrats okay?

[tslust]

Originally Posted by randolph

Are big cocked Democrats okay?

I don't mind playing with democrat cocks. I usually don't care what party a guy supports, I just want him to be a HARDliner.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

If the Repubs succeed in taking over the Gov with massive funding from foreign interests then its over for the middle class.

Proof? With the grass roots movement that's going on, I don't see why republicans would need to resort to foreign funding sources. Do you have evidence that this is anything more than dems flinging mud to see what sticks?

Originally Posted by randolph

Blackwater types will be used to suppress any opposition. This will be great for gun lovers. Like the Taliban, they can cruise the streets in Humvees to enforce compliance. Gays, transsexuals, atheists and all others that do not fit the Sarah Palin vision of a pure America will be marginalized. When the blackwaters show up at my door, I will be fully loaded and ready for them.

Oh boy lol. I think your biased media likes to set up Sarah Palin as the voice of republicans, but she's not.

Originally Posted by randolph

http://pol.moveon.org/republicorp_or...73-HAMxZnx&t=4

I've got one for you that's even worse. And what's more is it's true:
Tim Geithner, BO's secretary of treasury, allowed Steven Friedman to oversee Goldman Sachs. Who's Friedman? Former chairman of Goldman Sachs and was on the board of directors. Geithner OK'd this conflict of interest. Geithner also allows Friedman to keep his 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock while he oversees Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs stock rose from $78/share to $167 per share during the first year of Obama's administration.

The lobbyist for Goldman Sachs is Michael Pease. He joined the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

The reality of democrat political and business practices is far worse than anything moveon can make up about republicans.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Amy

Well, couldn't make it much lower.

WHO figures on quality of healthcare by country show a definite trend:

Socialised Healthcare
1 France
...

And why would the US want to rank high on a list of countries with socialized healthcare?

Originally Posted by Amy

Oh, indeed. Like doing stuff such as taking the entire social security surplus of over 2 trillion dollars which would be enough to cover the next few decades and...spending it...on the...armed forces...?

Nope, sorry. The entire gulf war cost less than half that.

Originally Posted by Amy

Or giving the rich tax cuts so they can invest more money in China and India and get rid of more American jobs?

The rich pay the vast majority of the taxes. What kind of cuts are you talking about? Raising taxes, like BO wants to do is what will get corporations to move to other countries. When BO outspent Bush's 8 years by 2.5 times in 2 months and raised our debt, China ended up owning even more of the US. So again, what are you talking about?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

It mystifies me why conservatives love to be screwed by Republicans but scream to high heaven when screwed by Democrats.

I don't suppose you've heard of the Tea Party movement?

Originally Posted by tslust

I don't mind playing with democrat cocks. I usually don't care what party a guy supports, I just want him to be a HARDliner.

LOL

[randolph]

Originally Posted by tslust

I don't mind playing with democrat cocks. I usually don't care what party a guy supports, I just want him to be a HARDliner.

Humm, Yes, I like to take hard positions on many issues especially ones that cum to fruition.

[The Conquistador]

Some wisdom from the past:

Originally Posted by Cicero-55 BC

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

TracyCoxx isn't a witch, she's you....

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

I don't mind playing with democrat cocks. I usually don't care what party a guy supports, I just want him to be a HARDliner.

My observation is that Republicans tell you up front that they're going to screw you. Democrats promise not to screw you, and once elected do it anyway.

Wait, are we talking about sex or politics?

[TracyCoxx]

In a New York Times magazine article, BO sounds like he's coming to grips with the likely outcome of the election. He says republicans will either have a modest win or a big win. The funny thing is that he says they "will have to learn to get along with me".

Republicans will be busy undoing the disaster that BO has created and preventing it from getting worse. BO can say that republicans are the party of 'No', but that's rather naive. There's a fundamental difference in philosophies that goes beyond simply saying no and he knows that very well.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Proof? With the grass roots movement that's going on, I don't see why republicans would need to resort to foreign funding sources. Do you have evidence that this is anything more than dems flinging mud to see what sticks?

Oh boy lol. I think your biased media likes to set up Sarah Palin as the voice of republicans, but she's not.


I've got one for you that's even worse. And what's more is it's true:
Tim Geithner, BO's secretary of treasury, allowed Steven Friedman to oversee Goldman Sachs. Who's Friedman? Former chairman of Goldman Sachs and was on the board of directors. Geithner OK'd this conflict of interest. Geithner also allows Friedman to keep his 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock while he oversees Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs stock rose from $78/share to $167 per share during the first year of Obama's administration.

The lobbyist for Goldman Sachs is Michael Pease. He joined the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

The reality of democrat political and business practices is far worse than anything moveon can make up about republicans.

Yes, the situation with the investment banks is appalling. Those bastards should be in jail, instead its business as usual. The Bush administration started pouring money over these banks and the Obama admin. has continued it. Could the economy have been saved by doing something else? What would have happened if these banks had not been bailed out and the ringleaders sent to jail?
Do you have an answer, Tracy?

[randolph]

I lost faith in Obama when he appointed the chief pesticide lobbyist as our agricultural representative in foreign affairs. Michell's "organic" garden is just window dressing for the public.
We knew when Bush was elected that we would be screwed, we thought Obama would at least take us out to dinner before screwing us, such is not the case.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes, the situation with the investment banks is appalling. Those bastards should be in jail, instead its business as usual. The Bush administration started pouring money over these banks and the Obama admin. has continued it. Could the economy have been saved by doing something else? What would have happened if these banks had not been bailed out and the ringleaders sent to jail?
Do you have an answer, Tracy?

My answer would be to listen to Ron Paul:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ul-bailou.html

BO misplaced the blame so the real problem isn't really going to be fixed and what's more, he hasn't done anything to prevent it from happening again.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

We knew when Bush was elected that we would be screwed, we thought Obama would at least take us out to dinner before screwing us, such is not the case.

Obama didn't waste any time. He pulled a shock awe campaign on America as soon as he took office.

But don't say you weren't warned

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

My answer would be to listen to Ron Paul:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ul-bailou.html

BO misplaced the blame so the real problem isn't really going to be fixed and what's more, he hasn't done anything to prevent it from happening again.

Yeah, I would have to go along with most of what Ron Paul has to say about the bail out. However, the so called free market capitalism he refers to is unstable without some regulation. Many of the regulations instituted by FDR worked well for many years until they were diluted or removed during the last thirty years. The lack of restraint allowed the economy of overheat and collapse.
The electronic age has revolutionized financial markets. Trading can be done on a split second basis and computer models can monitor trends instantly. Without controls, the computers could destroy the marker in seconds. The small investor can be wiped out before he can pick up the phone. The old style ideas about a "free" market are obsolete. Like it or not, there needs to be regulation.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yeah, I would have to go along with most of what Ron Paul has to say about the bail out. However, the so called free market capitalism he refers to is unstable without some regulation. Many of the regulations instituted by FDR worked well for many years until they were diluted or removed during the last thirty years. The lack of restraint allowed the economy of overheat and collapse.
The electronic age has revolutionized financial markets. Trading can be done on a split second basis and computer models can monitor trends instantly. Without controls, the computers could destroy the marker in seconds. The small investor can be wiped out before he can pick up the phone. The old style ideas about a "free" market are obsolete. Like it or not, there needs to be regulation.

FDR's policies hurt people more than they helped and we are still feeling the effects of it today.

I agree that there needs to be regulations but not like the kind we have now. The gov. should be acting as a referee and setting a fair playing ground, not determining the outcome for everyone.

[TracyCoxx]

It's happening more and more with each election. The republicans have to not only get enough votes to win, but get enough votes to overcome all the cheating that goes on with the democrats. Illegals are voting more often, Acorn is still around under different names signing up ineligable people to vote, Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and now it seems even voting machines are rigged. People have signed in to voting machines in Nevada only to find Harry Ried's name is already checked. How desperate is this guy?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's happening more and more with each election. The republicans have to not only get enough votes to win, but get enough votes to overcome all the cheating that goes on with the democrats. Illegals are voting more often, Acorn is still around under different names signing up ineligable people to vote, Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and now it seems even voting machines are rigged. People have signed in to voting machines in Nevada only to find Harry Ried's name is already checked. How desperate is this guy?

I don't support the Democrats or Republicans, but members should know that the Black Panther allegation here has been shown conclusively to be a hoax. It's amazing what fear of the new will do to people's minds.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's happening more and more with each election. The republicans have to not only get enough votes to win, but get enough votes to overcome all the cheating that goes on with the democrats. Illegals are voting more often, Acorn is still around under different names signing up ineligable people to vote, Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and now it seems even voting machines are rigged. People have signed in to voting machines in Nevada only to find Harry Ried's name is already checked. How desperate is this guy?

Oh My! The poor Republicans always abused by nasty Democrats and their evil buddies. We all know that Republicans always run fair honest campaigns, don't we?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I don't support the Democrats or Republicans, but members should know that the Black Panther allegation here has been shown conclusively to be a hoax. It's amazing what fear of the new will do to people's minds.

Oh that's good. So what did all that turn out to be?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Oh My! The poor Republicans always abused by nasty Democrats and their evil buddies. We all know that Republicans always run fair honest campaigns, don't we?

Of course. See even Randolph agrees!

[randolph]

My portfolio is back where it was two years ago, thanks to the stimulus program.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

My portfolio is back where it was two years ago, thanks to the stimulus program.

So is mime. Unfortunately it's two years behind where it would have been if it weren't for the democrats policies of forcing banks to give loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to ay them back. And unfortunately they won't be what they could be in the future because the stimulus packages were a bandaid, not a fix. And that nasty problem of giving out loans to uncreditworthy people... still a problem. So we will have to do all this again.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So is mime. Unfortunately it's two years behind where it would have been if it weren't for the democrats policies of forcing banks to give loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to ay them back. And unfortunately they won't be what they could be in the future because the stimulus packages were a bandaid, not a fix. And that nasty problem of giving out loans to uncreditworthy people... still a problem. So we will have to do all this again.

Do you really think the "Democrats" deliberately "forced" banks to make loans that would fail. This is very simplistic thinking. The banks that retained a conservative policy of making loans are still here, they were not "forced" to make bad loans. Greenspan's free for all policies along with rampant manipulation of mortgages into bonds by Wall street investment banks, were the major cause of the meltdown.
The entire financial industry came to believe that we had figured out how to make prosperity permanent. Consequently, risk was minimalized and loans which used to be considered risky were now okay.
Greed rules!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Do you really think the "Democrats" deliberately "forced" banks to make loans that would fail.

We already went over this.

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

The Wall Street Journal would beg to differ with them...

Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

How did we get here?
Let's review:

In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion.

In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse.

It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them.

By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. However, their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that -- despite their subsidized borrowing rates -- they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates.

In the wake of Freddie's 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios.

If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing?

The answer was their affordable-housing mission...

It was the CRA that had Fannie & Freddy backing loans to the poor. Banks would make the loans because Fannie & Freddy removed the risk. And also if they didn't, CRA would score then negatively and they wouldn't receive as much money from the government.

[TracyCoxx]

In the news: The Justice Department is sending a small pack of election observers to Arizona as Hispanic groups sound the alarm over an anti-illegal immigration group's mass e-mail seeking to recruit Election Day volunteers to help block illegal immigrants from voting.

Hey 'Hispanic groups'. Illegals have no right to vote... get over it!

[randolph]

8 Nasty Conservative Lies About the Democrats and Obama That Must Be Debunked Before the Election

By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on October 25, 2010, Printed on October 30, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148614/


There are a number things the public "knows" as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs.
Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there:
1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.
2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.
3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.
5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.
6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.
7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.
8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.
This stuff really matters.
If the public votes in a new Congress because a majority of voters think this one tripled the deficit, and as a result the new people follow the policies that actually tripled the deficit, the country could go broke.
If the public votes in a new Congress that rejects the idea of helping to create demand in the economy because they think it didn't work, then the new Congress could do things that cause a depression.
If the public votes in a new Congress because they think the health care reform will increase the deficit when it is actually projected to reduce the deficit, then the new Congress could repeal health care reform and thereby make the deficit worse. And on it goes.
Dave Johnson blogs at Seeing the Forest and is a Fellow at the Commonweal Institute. He has over 25 years of technology industry experience.
? 2010 Campaign for America's Future All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148614/

[franalexes]

and other ghost stories abound. It is that time of year.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

and other ghost stories abound. It is that time of year.

Hey you read my posts, you must be bored.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

8 Nasty Conservative Lies About the Democrats and Obama That Must Be Debunked Before the Election

Typical liberal M.O.: Accuse others for what liberals themselves are guilty of. The 2008 campaign was run on nothing but lies which was the crest of the wave of lies started in the 2004 campaign. After 9/11 the dems were acting in America's best interest, which happened to be the way Bush wanted to go. But then they realized going along with Bush wasn't going to help them win the election in 2004 so then began the smear campaign of George Bush. There are legitimate things to fault the guy on, but apparently truth wasn't enough for the democrats. Not much of America was buying this BS in 2004, but with the constant liberal bias in the media, enough people bought the lies instead of looking into the truth that the physical embodiment of all the liberal BS appeared in the name of Barack Obama and became president. Without Bush to whine about, and BO having to actually govern rather than drone on and on about his nebulous 'hope and change', Americans have apparently started thinking again and are about to kick the bums out. What do liberals do? Same as always... start spreading lies and apparently resorting to illegal measures to cushion the blow this election day. But back to liberal lies... Randolf, you posted someone's article about debunking "conservative lies", so I'll post someone's article which debunks your article.

Originally Posted by politicalmath

1) President Obama actually reduced the deficit since George Bush?s last deficit was $1.416 trillion.

In a sleight of hand worthy of a 7-year-old magician wannabe, he notes that, since Bush signed the 2009 budget, he is therefore responsible for all the debt in 2009, which was $1.416 trillion. He does not, however, explain that the stimulus was passed that year and added drastically to the deficit for 2009. Why is there no mention this? Because the author is interested only in political point-scoring, not the truth.

2) Obama actually cut taxes

This one is actually true. President Obama did cut taxes as a part of the stimulus. But apparently those tax cuts had no effect on the deficit described above, being replaced by money from the happiness rainbow tree that the author believes Obama keeps in the back yard. It is entertaining that the author says these tax cuts were ?wasted? since he will soon cite the CBO report on the stimulus, which claims that the tax cuts helped stimulate growth. Consistency is apparently not as much fun as throwing poo.

3) President Obama didn?t bail out the banks, George Bush did.

True, but Obama did vote for the bailout, as did John McCain. Perhaps he is claiming that Senators aren?t important and shouldn?t be held responsible for their own actions and that Congress has virtually nothing to do with governing the nation, in which case the whole article seems irrelevant since it?s not a presidential election and changing Congress won?t actually have an effect on anything. It?s hard to tell, he?s short on details.

4) The stimulus totally worked

He cites the CBO report on the stimulus. Whoop-de-do. The CBO report is an estimate based on an algorithm. When the Obama administration went to the CBO before the stimulus, the CBO plugged the numbers into a computer and said ?If you spend X money, you will get Y jobs?. Nearly 2 years later, the Obama administration asked the CBO to plug the numbers in again and ? surprise! ? they got the same result. It is not based on any actual measurement of the job market, it?s based on a model.

A better way of determining if the stimulus worked would be to ask ?Did we follow the unemployment curve the administration said we would?? The answer is ?hell no?. Unemployment is far worse than the administration predicted with the stimulus. This is a point which the author explains at length. I?m just kidding; he totally ignores it, perhaps imagining that he had addressed it but could no longer make out the words from behind the spittle covering his laptop screen.

5) Businesses don?t hire based on tax cuts

Young, small businesses hire more than big businesses. They will usually work the people they have as much as possible until it becomes clear that they cannot pull in any more business without new people. Fewer taxes means more money. More money could simply mean more profit (as it has recently with larger companies), or it could mean more growth, more employees, even more money. It varies from business to business. But saying ?it?s complicated? does not give the author the intellectual political anger management outlet he clearly needs, so I guess we should be glad he?s not biting anyone?s fingers off.

6) Health care reform reduces gov?t deficits

Here, he cites an article from before the health care reform bill was passed. Since then, the estimate has jumped up as things like the 21% cut in Medicare reimbursement was postponed, then postponed again and large companies like McDonald?s got permission to ignore the law when they told the government that they would drop coverage for their employees if they didn?t get a waiver.

Thus, the various cost-savings of the bill have been shown implausible or manipulative (which is exactly what I said would happen to those absurd estimates nearly a year ago). They were nothing but projection manipulation devices and anyone who wasn?t drunk could see that was the case.

7) Social Security is fine. It?s not a Ponzi scheme.

Yes, Social Security has run a surplus? up to this year when it ran a decifit. Projections have it pushing back into surplus for a couple years until, in 2016, it dips back into deficit forever. ?No problem,? the increasingly dense author of the article says, ?There?s a trust fund?. Yeah? a trust fund held in US debt. The SS trust fund buys up US debt, which the government pays back regularly, so it?s a pretty safe asset. That trust fund should last for a while, but eventually we will be paying Social Security returns to older investors (the elderly) from their own money or money paid by newer investors (the younger generation).

That is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

8 ) Government spending is good for the economy

Here the author talks about how the government spends so much on infrastructure, roads, airports, schools (in an ideal world these things are all good for the economy) but only a ?small part of the government?s budget? is for welfare and foreign aid. I?m kind of funny inasmuch as I think that 60% of our budget is not a ?small part?. (I?m counting SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and ?other? mandatory programs. But not interest on the debt.)

Roads and schools? (Transportation and Education) They account for 3.3% of the budget. Since welfare and foreign aid are such a ?small part? of the budget, the author won?t mind if we get rid of it. I?d be delighted if we reduced the other parts of the budget so that Transportation and Education made the bulk of it.

Overall, the author targets builds up conservative strawmen of ?lies? and then uses liberal strawmen (and selective data) to ?prove? them wrong. This article is nothing more than red meat for people who already agree and don?t have time to do the research themselves. It?s sloppy, lazy, angry and impotent. And, worst of all, it spreads disinformation. Hopefully this post is something of an antidote.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh that's good. So what did all that turn out to be?

I'm hearing crickets. Were you going to answer this?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm hearing crickets. Were you going to answer this?

I didn't answer because I cannot figure out what you are asking. Your question was: "So what did all that turn out to be?" I have absolutely no idea what "all that" is in the context of "turn out."

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Typical liberal M.O.: Accuse others for what liberals themselves are guilty of. The 2008 campaign was run on nothing but lies which was the crest of the wave of lies started in the 2004 campaign. After 9/11 the dems were acting in America's best interest, which happened to be the way Bush wanted to go. But then they realized going along with Bush wasn't going to help them win the election in 2004 so then began the smear campaign of George Bush. There are legitimate things to fault the guy on, but apparently truth wasn't enough for the democrats. Not much of America was buying this BS in 2004, but with the constant liberal bias in the media, enough people bought the lies instead of looking into the truth that the physical embodiment of all the liberal BS appeared in the name of Barack Obama and became president. Without Bush to whine about, and BO having to actually govern rather than drone on and on about his nebulous 'hope and change', Americans have apparently started thinking again and are about to kick the bums out. What do liberals do? Same as always... start spreading lies and apparently resorting to illegal measures to cushion the blow this election day. But back to liberal lies... Randolf, you posted someone's article about debunking "conservative lies", so I'll post someone's article which debunks your article.

Thanks Tracy now I have both sides.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I didn't answer because I cannot figure out what you are asking. Your question was: "So what did all that turn out to be?" I have absolutely no idea what "all that" is in the context of "turn out."

The government was in the process of suing Black Panther members who were wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on an election day. The case was moving along and then Obama's newly staffed DOJ had the case dropped.
An article about it is here.

You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The government was in the process of suing Black Panther members who were wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on an election day. The case was moving along and then Obama's newly staffed DOJ had the case dropped.
An article about it is here.

You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax?

I want to make clear that I am a supporter of neither the furthest left wing of the Democratic Party, the furthest right wing of the Republican Party, Libertarianism, or anything in between those poles. My interest in this issue has to do with truth and reasonable discourse about things that actually matter.

So, with that disclaimer, here is my response, Tracy.

You are correct about one thing, and it has to do with my use of the word "hoax." I misused that word by failing to make the context clear. What I meant was that the charge that the political appointees of Obama overruled "career attorneys" to have the case dropped is a hoax.

Anyone who wants to know the true story, based on full quotes that are contextual, would be wise to go beyond the Washington Times story to which you provide a link. That is a biased newspaper by any reasonable journalistic standards, and the headline of the story you linked to is proof. Why? Because it was "career lawyers" at DOJ who recommended dropping the case, and a federal judge who accepted the rationale for dropping the case. Obama political appointees only okayed the recommendation before it was passed on to the judge.

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html

Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution.

As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism.

Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

[randolph]

I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html

Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution.

As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism.
Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions.

Very well put SMC.
Tracy is very well informed from a very conservative standpoint. Fortunately, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all these ultra liberal and ultra conservative views.

[tslust]

Tommorrow's the big day boys and gurls.

[randolph]

I hope tomorrow is not the start of Armageddon.
There is lots of good people out there, they just need to VOTE!