American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;412154]I think it's a bit amusing that stan voted for obama, despite admitting he did not agree with his domestic agenda or economic policies. And now he's upset with obama over his domestic agenda and economic policies.[/QUOTE]Typical.

Esten, I stopped responding to you because you're not credible. You simply lie, and it's not worth the time to discuss matters with someone who can't stick to facts. Unfortunately, I've got to do so now. I did not vote for Obama and have never said I did, here or anywhere else.

No doubt you'll claim this was simply an innocent mistake. After enough "mistakes, " however, your credibility gets shot, and it's not worth having a discussion with you. You may claim that this is because our politics differ. But, while richard was here, I was happy to debate him, and he is even further to the left of you. The difference is, he stuck to the truth. You don't. It's typical of the left, and I was happy to find that richard was an exception. Unfortunately, it's more of the same from you.

I await your link to a credible story on the 58 Bush White house aides who supposedly owed back taxes. I won't debate it with you. As I said, I'm done with that. But, you ought to at least back up your bs. If you can't, we'll all know why.

According to this politics daily article, the current $831k back tax amounts for employees of the executive office is about the same as it was in the last year of the bush administration. But they don't cite a source.

Http: /www. Politicsdaily. Com/tag/back+taxes+owed/

It's all b. S. Anyway. If you've ever gotten a deficiency notice from the irs, you owed back taxes and continued to owe them until the irs decided that the issue got resolved. I recall getting two of them over the years. One went away when I sent them the number I'd forgotten to write down on my return and the other was the result of a math error I made long before the days of turbotax. They were no big deal. Most small-business people I know seem to have open issues with the irs all the time that sometimes stretch back several years as correspondence goes back and forth about the issue.

The only reason to bring it up is to try and use people's ignorance of reality to try and score political points. The reality is 4% of taxpayers owe back taxes at any point in time and I can't think of any reason that people who work in government should be any different. Now, if the irs has taken someone to court and won a judgment for fraud or willful negligence, and that person was in an important position in the government, that would be worth talking about.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;411135]As further evidence, I posted long ago that, if I had voted this last election, it would have been for Obama.[/QUOTE]I remembered this statement from you on 7/28 to be you had voted for him. I was mistaken. Although I don't think it is something entirely different from what I thought you said. But I do acknowledge the mistake.

Here is the article for federal workers who owed back taxes under Bush. The article cites irs records obtained through the freedom of information act. The 58 is under the same category as the 41 you cited (executive office of the president) so its apples to apples. You were quick to label it "bs", but that's not the case.

Http: /www. Wtop. Com/? Nid=25&sid=1478352

If I learn I have said something inaccurate I will acknowledge it without trying to dodge. And I spend a good deal of time fact-checking before I write, not 100% of the time but quite a bit. Out of the many things I have written in this thread, I am confident you will not find much that is presented as fact (vs opinion) that isn't fact. I may joke sometimes or counter one-sided arguments with the same, but one thing I don't do is lie. That's a pretty strong character attack.

I'll point out stan's game for those who may be missing it. Fact is, we haven't debated much at all. We exchanged comments directly a few times but that's it. Instead of engaging me in a meaningful debate, stan has chosen to jump right to smear tactics in his comments about me being lost and now a liar. I guess that's an easier path, but not one I respect.

Stan I'll welcome any meaningful discussion or debate from you. I think it is likely you would find I have valid points, and/or you have misunderstood things I said before. However if you choose not to, I still reserve the right to respond to narrow, one-sided and other similar posts you may make.

Esten is this the link you were trying to P. S?

[url]http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1478352[/url]

I would have to agree that this is an issue not solely related to one party. However, the extraordinary number of Obama appointees that had unpaid taxes and got away with it brought this issue to the fore. Particularly, the imminently, unqualified timothy geithner.

I think it would be safe to say that americans in general find it appalling that many, many folks in both houses of congress, the justice department, the treasury, home land defense and other federal agencies owe billions of dollars in back taxes (on average $7k-17k/delinquent) while ostensibly enacting and enforcing the laws upon the citizenry, while skirting those same laws themselves.

It is interesting that "the irs is the only federal agency where an employee can be fired for not paying his taxes. " "can" being the operative word in the previous passage considering the treatment given to the irs top boss, geithner.

The sheer hypocrisy of the situation and the fact that "washington" and the ruling class are held to a different standard than regular folks is fueling the velvet rebellion. What is particularly galling is that the standard for those who rule us is actually lower than that to which we are held.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412225]What is particularly galling is that the standard for those who rule us is actually lower than that to which we are held.[/QUOTE]And they get better health care.

Sysco

[QUOTE=Sysco234; 412226]and they get better health care.

Sysco[/QUOTE]They get better healthcare and they are exempt from Obamacare

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412235]They get better healthcare and they are exempt from Obamacare[/QUOTE]Which is why they have BETTER healthcare. I would accept any law that Congress and the Senate were willing to live with themselves. For some reason, they need to have their own special version.

Sysco

[QUOTE=Sysco234;412237]Which is why they have BETTER healthcare. I would accept any law that Congress and the Senate were willing to live with themselves. For some reason, they need to have their own special version.[/QUOTE]A grave and dangerous problem is that Congress and the Senate [I]don't bother[/I] to live under the laws they make for the masses. They hold themselves above us as an elite, an aristocracy.

I don't see anything in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, that serves as a basis for this arrogance.

Earlier this year, one of my friends passed along a proposed Amendment to the USA Constitution, along the lines of:

1. Congress shall enact no law regarding themselves that does not apply equally and identically to the People of the United States.

2. Congress shall enact no law regarding the People of the United States that does not apply equally and identically to themselves.

Perfect example? Obamacare. I brought [I]handwritten[/I] letters to the "House Call to Capital Hill", last April, for my Congressperson and both Senators; the core concept was "If you buy it for us you're honor-bound to take it for yourselves. " One Senator did have a form letter sent to me about how proud she was of having passed Obamacare.

Jeez, give me a break!

[QUOTE=Westy;412247]A grave and dangerous problem is that Congress and the Senate [I]don't bother[/I] to live under the laws they make for the masses. They hold themselves above us as an elite, an aristocracy.[/quote]You are absolutely correct. The bastardization of the system that the founders envisioned has resulted in a ruling class. This is something that the founders never envisioned and tried mightily to avoid. Escaping totalitarian rule was part of the origin of this place they call America.

[quote=]I don't see anything in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, that serves as a basis for this arrogance.[/quote]Don't waste your time, it ain't there

[quote=]Earlier this year, one of my friends passed along a proposed Amendment to the USA Constitution, along the lines of:

1. Congress shall enact no law regarding themselves that does not apply equally and identically to the People of the United States.

2. Congress shall enact no law regarding the People of the United States that does not apply equally and identically to themselves. [/quote]That would fly in the face of the existing congressional mandate: "Congress shall enact no law that infringes, in any way, the free lunch we dirtbag members have stolen form the honest hardworking citizenry. "

[quote=]Perfect example? Obamacare. I brought [I]handwritten[/I] letters to the "House Call to Capital Hill", last April, for my Congressperson and both Senators; the core concept was "If you buy it for us you're honor-bound to take it for yourselves. " One Senator did have a form letter sent to me about how proud she was of having passed Obamacare.[/quote]Proud of foisting something upon you that she and her progeny will never have to encounter. Seems fair to me.

[quote=]Jeez, give me a break![/QUOTE]There are no breaks. Get off your ass, get everyone you know (that isn't a complete asshole) and get them to vote this November and every November thereafter. Freedom, the American Dream and all the other quaint ideals that go with them are not free. Thankfully, most Americans don't ever have to do more than get off the couch and pull a lever or check a box.

Punter- That's the link, thanks.

Doppel- If you want to continue our spending discussion, fine. Incredibly, you are STILL making incorrect statements! The CBO projection for Republican Paul Ryan's request is based on ARRA provision extensions that DON'T EXIST. You should acknowledge that. Stimulus/ARRA spending could never exceed $1T because spending in that bill is capped at $499B. To get to $1T spending you could add in TARP, but even that won't do it. Yes Obama spent some of the TARP funds. But it matters little how much each president spent, because much of TARP has been repaid; an estimate as of April 12, 2010 is the total cost will be $89B. To get to $1T spending, you could try adding up ALL spending programs under Obama (not Bush) and see what you get. I haven't bothered but I definately have not found evidence of $1T spending (to date), certainly not under ARRA, TARP or the CNN list you referenced.

I don't argue Obama is spending a lot... Of course he is and for good reason. I'm simply correcting your mis-statements. I welcome your attempt to do the math and demonstrate with credible evidence that Obama has spent (not just committed) $1T so far, as you keep claiming. I am confident you cannot.

To provide some perspective on back taxes, consider this article from 2008:

60, 000 firms owe $8B in taxes [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-24-unpaid-taxes_N.htm[/url]

Of course our elected (or appointed) officials should be held to a high standard on paying taxes. But in terms of dollars the $9. 3 million owed by Capitol Hill employees is a drop in the bucket compared to the private sector. And this $8B number is only for federal contractors, so the total private sector number is likely much larger.

I've said before the real problems facing our country come from the private sector, not the government. Back taxes are yet another private sector issue, though by no means the main problem.

[I]"Riding a wave of conservative anger, Tea Party darling and Sarah Palin-backed Christine O'Donnell shockingly defeats Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware's GOP Senate primary. " [/I]

This was one of the more divisive GOP primaries. What do you guys make of the result?

[QUOTE=Esten; 412288]To provide some perspective on back taxes, consider this article from 2008:

60, 000 firms owe $8B in taxes [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-24-unpaid-taxes_N.htm[/url]

[/quote]Comparing firms to individuals is a little sophomoric, even for you.

[quote=]Of course our elected (or appointed) officials should be held to a high standard on paying taxes.[/quote]Then why don't you?

[quote=] But in terms of dollars the $9. 3 million owed by Capitol Hill employees is a drop in the bucket compared to the private sector.[/quote]Well then that makes it all right.

[quote=] And this $8B number is only for federal contractors, so the total private sector number is likely much larger.[/quote]Probably lower. If federal employees don't have to worry about enforcement, why should contractors.

[quote=]I've said before the real problems facing our country come from the private sector, not the government.[/quote]Which is why you support eliminating it (the private sector)

[quote=] Back taxes are yet another private sector issue, though by no means the main problem.[/QUOTE]Why not collect taxes that are due before increasing taxes on those who actual pay them.

[QUOTE=Esten; 412289][I]"Riding a wave of conservative anger, Tea Party darling and Sarah Palin-backed Christine O'Donnell shockingly defeats Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware's GOP Senate primary. " [/I]

This was one of the more divisive GOP primaries. What do you guys make of the result? [/QUOTE]Wow, I am all torn up inside worrying about this "civil war" within the GOP. This must be the first divisive primary ever. I guess the republicans are going to get creamed in November.

What I see is that people are so pissed about the direction of the country. Which at this point can only be the Democrats' fault since they dominate the congress and control the White house. That they are willing to take a conservative with some blemishes over a "party" man who really should have a "Dem" next to his name. I would have to say that does not bode well for those who really do have "Ds" next to their names in November.

Esten, even the Democrats are saying it cost $836 Billion. While you have finally admitted Obama spent TARP money, I am relieved but you need to add that to the $836 Billion figure and you are getting close to the $1 Trillion without counting other spending bills he has assisted in passing.

You constantly harp on the war spending being the primary factor for increasing the deficit, I will find the graph which shows how much of the deficit the wars actually account for, it was very small, and P.S. It here for you to lay to rest this misinformation you keep spreading.

WW is right, the "silent majority” is silent no more and the Democrats are whistling P.S. The grave yard when it comes to the defeat of entrenched Republicans being replaced by new small government and less taxes Republican candidates taking the party back to its true roots. Folks are just getting more pissed as the days P.S. To the November elections and voter turnout for the primaries has been much greater for the Republicans than the Democrats. In the P.S. Voter turnout for primaries has been a reliable barometer for the fall election cycle, if that holds true the Democrats are in for a rude awakening on Nov 3rd.

Harry Reid’s latest stunt of promising to include the “Dream Act” and abolition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the coming Senate defense spending bill as tacked on amendments is pure pandering to the Left’s special interests and will not be well received by the majority of the American people only adding to the fire storm coming in November.

There is a better query to be made regarding Castle-O’Donnell, if one seeks the truth. Clearly, I would not expect Esten to probe in this manner because he works so hard not to find what lies at the end of this path. The question isn’t about what republicans think, rather “What does the left think about a public uprising that throws out posers, who do not vote and act as they once promised, in exchange for unknown candidates promising to do the opposite? ”

As a follow up “If unknown conservative candidates can come out of nowhere and defeat entrenched GOP candidates in AK, CO, Delaware and so on, what might they do to Democrat candidates in November? ”

You can find the answer to those questions in the fact that Dems across the nation and particularly those in main stream media are so consumed with a GOP primary in Delaware. The answer is that they know that they are in real trouble. It isn't just the trouble of possibly losing the house and the senate, it is bigger than that. The Left and Dems face the trouble that the coming repudiation (via historic losses for the left in November) may cause catastrophic harm to their ability to enact major legislation through the congress for years, perhaps a generation or more. No new war on poverty, no New-new Deal, no blanket amnesty (which means no 15+ million new democrats), no more stimulus, no Obamacare.

Those are ugly consequences for the left and it is painful for them to contemplate. However the “why” hurts a whole lot more, which is why they are trying to bury it as best they can. The “why” is the fact that the left is not being defeated by the right or by the GOP or by the Tea Party. The foe that is vanquishing the left is far mightier than any of those collections of mortals. Liberalism is being defeated by the truth.

When the truth is not on your side, use more propaganda. You see, while feigning engagement on issues, propagandists do nothing of the sort. Engagement is the propagandist’s kryptonite. If Esten and his brethren participated in the act of proposing, supporting and defending their positions, they would be exposed for the frauds that they are. Coverage of this primary as “hotly contested” and indicative of a schism within the GOP is complete fantasy. It is deliberate propaganda intended to dissuade America from identifying the conservative ascendancy that is occurring (not coming, occurring). As I have stated before, the reference points for interpreting the election results in November will be moved by the propagandists to try to cover up the historic *-slapping that is coming their way. If the GOP does not take control of both houses, the media will cast the collective outcome as a failure by the GOP and will somehow spin it to mean the Obama should keep on keeping on.

I am by no means counting my chickens before they hatch. The key to November is not taking both houses, it is taking enough seats (from Dems and republican pussies that vote like Dems) to derail Obama's quest to do further damage to America. Whether or not the Dems lose both houses, the fact is that the citizenry has rejected them and their ideology. The special elections and primaries are prima facia evidence that the people are clearly against Obama and his policies. GOP control will signal the beginning of the end for: Cap and Tax, other wasteful green programs, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and additional stimulus (unless the newly elected congress is dumb enough to think that the people who elected them want to be repaid in pork). Hopefully, the first course of action will be to de-fund Obamacare and work towards a full-scale repeal of that mess.

The downside is that if the GOP takes the house and delivers (and that is a very big if), the liberal spending spree will be over and the tax burden should not increase. If things improve it will be due to: 1) the resiliency of the US economic system (despite Obama trying to destroy it) and 2) preventing Obama from doing any further harm to the economy. Therefore, things will improve before Nov 2012 and Big Ears will surely try to take credit for it. That said, I believe that the sleeping giant has been awoken and that even if the above plays out (economy improves, Obama takes credit) that a majority of those going to the polls in 2012 will see beyond the teleprompter to the truth about the false hope that was Obamaism and the empty promises of liberalism.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412320]Harry Reid’s latest stunt of promising to include the “Dream Act” and abolition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the coming Senate defense spending bill as tacked on amendments is pure pandering to the Left’s special interests and will not be well received by the majority of the American people only adding to the fire storm coming in November.[/QUOTE]It is truly sad. I don't think he is trying to win votes with these actions, I think they are the last desperate acts of a dead man. If he is trying to buy votes, he is more out of touch than I thought. So, he's in the fight of his political life and he expects queers (no offense intended) and illegals to tip the scales in his favor? Just how many gay, registered voters does he think reside in Nevada? As for the Dream Act, how many illegals does he plan to register before the election? Good thing we don't require positive voter identification.

How many that weren't planning to vote in November are now going to the polls because "DADT" or the Dream Act might make it to the Senate floor? I can assure you that most voters smart and dumb alike do not understand the Senate majority leader's role in what gets to the floor and what does not. Voters in Nevada don't give a rats ass about "Don't ask, don't tell" and they sure as hell don't want the Dream Act to add to their democrat-induced nightmare (highest unemployment and foreclosure rate in the nation). Of course, Harry told them that he had nothing to do with those problems. If he loses, it will be good riddance to a dishonest scumbag who has only evaded prosecution due to his high ranking office.

Back when Big Ears got elected, I said that he didn't have a mandate, at least not one typically associated with Presidential elections.

Mandates come from unified voter support for a candidate's platform and promises. America did not sign onto Obama for his agenda, policies or campaign promises. His only mandate was to keep being black (although Jesse and Al didn't think he was black enough), which seemed to be a common thread amongst many voters that supported him (don't waste your time trying to spin this as a racist comment).

In 2008, McCain was on his way to eeking out a very slim victory (leading in all polls) up until Lehman Brothers failed (Sept 15th). McCain suspended his campaign lost the lead for good and never came back (probably would have lost even if he didn't suspend the campaign. That was a desperate gambit to try to counter the Lehman effect). Panic ensued in both the financial markets and on Main Street and the margin of victory shifted to Obama. The shift was made entirely based upon fear, not belief.

Everything Obama has done since taking office has been without a mandate, for the benefit of a very small minority and to the detriment of the majority of Americans and to the fabric of the nation.

Two years ago, the alarm bells went off about the H1N1 virus. It was going to be the worst flu strain in a century. Millions would die. Everyone in the "mainstream" scientific community agreed. Based on all the science, it was labeled a pandemic. No flu vaccines capable of handling this new strain existed, but government spent billions to help cultivate and purchase these vaccines once they finally were developed.

What happened? The "mainstream" scientific community was dead wrong. The flu turned out to be much milder than the normal, garden-variety flu. Skeptical citizens knew this early on as the death toll numbers that scientists convinced everyone they would see never materialized. Now, panels are quietly investigating how the conventional wisdom and all of these respected scientists could have been so wrong.

And the dire H1N1 warnings were all supposedly based on legitimate science.

Now, we come to the multiple "Stimulus" efforts that have been deployed, and the new ones that are being proposed. Conventional wisdom, based on what the media feeds us, is that stimulus programs were necessary because we were in a recession. But, we've been in many other recessions and came out of them without anything that approaches the massive spending done by this administration. Yes, they claim, but this recession was [I]really[/I] bad, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Not so fast. The recession now is [I]really[/I] bad, based on its length and the unemployment rate alone, but those were the things all this stimulus spending was supposed to fix. The only response you generally get is, "well, it would have been worse without the massive spending. " There's nothing to back it up.

The only "science" that suggests these programs were necessary or even worthwhile are based on economics. They call economics "the dismal science" for a reason: It got its name after Thomas Malthus projected that population growth would cause a parade of horribles, eventually leading to starvation and death for much of mankind. He was dead wrong, and the name stuck, if only as a reminder that economic models are notoriously inaccurate.

So, why does anyone take it seriously when the current administration, based on so-called "expert" economists, concludes that any of the stimulus packages were necessary? To the extent that any of these "experts" provide any basis for their conclusions, it almost invariably is predicated on some Keynesian economic principle that is questionable [I]at best[/I]. Real world data debunks nearly every Keynesian theory. It's junk science, yet we're led to believe that billions in spending was and is necessary because these junk scientists tell us so.

What proof is there that these Stimulus programs were unnecessary? Of course it's impossible to "prove" now, but the best evidence is historical. In only one recession have we even approached the record level of stimulus and deficit spending that has been happening. It's called "the Great Depression, " and it lasted longer and was deeper than any other recession. By comparison, Europe did not engage in anywhere near the government stimulus FDR rammed through (measured as a percentage of GDP), and its economies recovered more quickly and its unemployment rate stayed lower at all points than the USA. In all other recessions, we have not spent anywhere near what this team has, and we suffered less (measured in nearly any way possible) and emerged more quickly. So, you can't conclusively prove what would have happened without the massive stimulus, but the smart money bets on experience.

So, if it's not the junk scientists with their demonstrably false Keynesian models, then who should we believe as to why stimulus spending is necessary? Obama and Geithner? Geithner's the same guy who either can't figure out how to pay his taxes, or was attempting to evade them. We've either got a buffoon or a crook running Treasury, yet we're supposed to trust him to spend nearly a trillion dollars wisely. This is the same pair who went to the G-20 meeting in June to trumpet the success of the USA stimulus packages and to chide Europe for even thinking about cutting spending to get their budgets in line. [url]http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-26/geithner-says-g-20-needs-focus-on-domestic-demand-not-deficits.html[/url]

They were laughed out of the room by European leaders, particularly Germany, which cut spending instead. Turns out, Germany had the first and last laugh. Their economy is healthy by all accounts, while the Obama/Geithner Stimulus has succeeded only in driving up the deficit. The Obama-led Stiimulus does feed his arguments, though: He claims we [I]can't afford[/I] tax cuts for the wealthy. Why not? Well, because he was so busy blowing our wad on worthless Stimulus projects. (He usually forgets that last part in his stump speeches.)

These are the sorts of issues that are driving the Tea Party. It's one thing to raise taxes for worthwhile projects. But, taking other people's money is justified only when the government gets its house in order and cuts all the wasteful spending that is abundantly apparent. ObamaCare and cash for clunkers are but two of many examples, and they are on top of the worthless Stimulus programs. Obama's "wish list" spending proposal today is just more evidence. Dems may think that the Tea Party is driving a wedge between the Republican party. But, the truth is, the Tea Party is symptomatic of the general disgust at the misguided policies and wasteful spending that has occurred and is still being proposed by this administration. Absent this, the Tea Party wouldn't exist. Come November, thankfully, we'll be done with all of these ludicrous stimulus proposals, brought forth by a team that couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412329]These are the sorts of issues that are driving the Tea Party.[/quote]There are many issues, however, I believe that there is one common theme, the douche bags elected to represent us don't. They represent their own selfish interest and those of their biggest patrons (I mean donors).

[quote=] It's one thing to raise taxes for worthwhile projects. But, taking other people's money is justified only when the government gets its house in order and cuts all the wasteful spending that is abundantly apparent. ObamaCare and cash for clunkers are but two of many examples, and they are on top of the worthless Stimulus programs.'[/quote]It is funny that the media never really investigated cash for clunkers or the home buyer's credit. These two slights of hand just paid individuals to accelerate their time table for executing transactions. This in effect took future transactions and moved up their timing. No net increase in sales, just altered timing. It is a rouse. We will see the effect in the future in the form of continued lack luster sales.

[quote=]Obama's "wish list" spending proposal today is just more evidence.[/quote]Here's to hoping the Boehner will be able to shove that list up Big Ears' ass.

[quote=] Dems may think that the Tea Party is driving a wedge between the Republican party.[/quote]They don't think that at all. But that won't stop them from saying it and wishing it was true.

[quote=] But, the truth is, the Tea Party is symptomatic of the general disgust at the misguided policies and wasteful spending that has occurred and is still being proposed by this administration. Absent this, the Tea Party wouldn't exist.[/quote]You are correct sir. Obama is the founder of the Tea Party. As I have said before, Obama did not have a mandate. When he lurched violently to the left (inauguration) and started destroying the country, he overstepped his bounds and the country noticed. If he was a pragmatist and not an ideologue, he would have passed smaller, more insidious legislation, avoided creating the tea party and would not be looking at losing both houses of congress in a few short weeks.

[quote=]Come November, thankfully, we'll be done with all of these ludicrous stimulus proposals, brought forth by a team that couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag.[/QUOTE]Be done with them as elected officials, yes. However, I do not think that we should forget or forgive the anti-American attack that this congress and president have wrought for their own political gain. Again, just to be clear, this is not anti-decent-citizen with liberal philosophies (you're wrong but I still love you) this is anti-anti-American liberal activists and democrat party apparatchiks.

Two quotes that Obama will learn to regret in the next 45 days "We won, you lost" (picture Boehner with a hot poker and Big Ears grabbing his ankles) and "I'm the only thing between you and the pitch forks and torches. "

As for H1N1, I called the govt reaction fraudulent (which it was) when it happened, but sadly I also know a healthy guy in his 20's who dropped dead from it. There was reason to be cautious and on guard but claiming a false pandemic in order to frighten the public into swallowing Obamacare was criminal (in my opinion, perhaps the new congress can look into that)

I can sense the tide is turning here, and with a few more posts will be able to convince you guys to abandon conservatism and embrace liberalism...

I normally would not continue something like this so long... But it is too tempting to keep pointing out Doppelganger's repeated misrepresentations and errors for all to see.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412320]Esten, even the Democrats are saying it cost $836 Billion. [/QUOTE]Can't find Dems saying that anywhere. Do you have a link? Here's some google search results on stimulus Obama "X billion": X=787 gives 76600 results; X=814 gives 1850 results; X=836 gives 66 results. I found no credible sources for the 836 number, only on various blogs and forums. The latest number per CBO is $814B and that's what you should be using.

[QUOTE]While you have finally admitted Obama spent TARP money, I am relieved [/QUOTE]But I never said he didn't spend any TARP funds. I disputed your claim that Obama bailed out Wall Street. Wall Street was bailed out by TARP, and specifically the first half of TARP under the Capital Purchase Program and Targeted Investment Program. Bush signed TARP and spent that first half.

[QUOTE]but you need to add that to the $836 Billion figure and you are getting close to the $1 Trillion without counting other spending bills he has assisted in passing.[/QUOTE]Wrong. The latest ARRA spending number is about $295B spent so far, and the TARP money Obama spent that has not been repaid yet is roughly around $100B. The sum of these numbers is around $400B spent, which is not close to $1T. Even over time, that number will go up as more ARRA is spent and down as more TARP is repaid. As I predicted, you have failed to demonstrate your case for $1T spent to date.

[QUOTE]You constantly harp on the war spending being the primary factor for increasing the deficit, [/QUOTE]Even your collegues can see how ridiculous this statement is. I posted a breakdown of deficit components a couple times... Far from constantly. War spending was one of several components, and I never said it was the primary component. Actually in that breakdown, war spending is the smallest component at present. Do you have any integrity that you might acknowledge your distortions?

[QUOTE=Esten;412335]I can sense the tide is turning here, and with a few more posts will be able to convince you guys to abandon conservatism and embrace liberalism...[/QUOTE]What ever you are smoking. Please share! LOL! Tick! Tick! Tick! Soon all will be revealed! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;412339]What ever you are smoking. Please share! LOL! Tick! Tick! Tick! Soon all will be revealed! Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Glad to hear I made someone laugh!

BTW, do you realize that a woman who advocates abstinence and a righteous lifestyle just ruined any chance you might have had to fuck a Madahos hottie at my expense?

[QUOTE=Esten; 412342]Glad to hear I made someone laugh!

BTW, do you realize that a woman who advocates abstinence and a righteous lifestyle just ruined any chance you might have had to fuck a Madahos hottie at my expense? [/QUOTE]Despite the noise around the race, Delaware is in play with O'Donnell as the republican candidate.

Once again, I don't count my chickens before they hatch and I do not believe that control of the Senate this fall is required to legitimize the conservative ascendancy (while it may be a condition of your bet).

The Republicans could wind up with 53 (that's right 53) seats in the Senate with both DE and CT in play (I am saying that they are both in play, although I am not hearing many others say that).

I am sure you have heard the expression "A rising tide lifts all boats. " Think of this more as a ten foot tidal bore.

[QUOTE=Esten; 412342]Glad to hear I made someone laugh!

BTW, do you realize that a woman who advocates abstinence and a righteous lifestyle just ruined any chance you might have had to fuck a Madahos hottie at my expense? [/QUOTE]There may be a few more surprises left that get me to that 50 number. Time will only tell. That said, as long as there are more GOP senators that DEM senators, one might consider that as a win? Your thoughts. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

P. Remember I win the ties.

You're sitting with ten, jack, queen, king but nothing of value waiting for the river.

You think, "give me an ace, give me an ace, give me an ace! "

And down comes an ace.

This is kind of the sensation with the news coming out of the democrats these days.

Not that it directly impacts the November outcomes, but I find it funny that just when Team Obama was trying to reintroduce Michelle the Mooch to electioneering, out comes this Sarkosy book. It is too funny. "I hate being first lady (flying to NYC on AF1 just for dinner and a show; huge boondoggle to Spain, free housing for my mom, etc)" is going to play well with the masses. Wonder why the declined to have dinner with the Sarkosys?

The Tea Party is going to spark a moral awakening !

[QUOTE=Esten;412385]The Tea Party is going to spark a moral awakening ![/QUOTE]Who is he trying to fool? The 20% of the country that thinks he is a muslim or the 50% that knows he favors Muslims, of any nationality, over Americans?

The fornicating issue is due to the wide spread infestation of "raticulae Mario Cuomo" not due to any Tea Party platform.

Our resident propagandist, Esten, is at it again. The Conservatism of the Tea Party is based upon fiscal conservatism first (I. E. Smaller govt, lower taxes) and not primarily based on social conservative issues. Esten knows this, as do his Marxist comrades throughout the left. However, they need to bring out the scare tactics and distortions to try to fight back the coming tide.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412413] However, they need to bring out the scare tactics and distortions to try to fight back the coming tide.[/QUOTE]Hahaha. If thats not the pot calling the kettle black. This was and still is the primary fighting tactic of the right wing whacko s

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412423]Hahaha. If thats not the pot calling the kettle black. This was and still is the primary fighting tactic of the right wing whacko s[/QUOTE]So right wing whackos are fear mongers. Then you will have no problem providing us with half a dozen examples of right wing fear mongering.

While you are compiling that information, I will be starving old people, stealing candy from kids, kicking dogs, tossing styro-foam into my pond, using racial epitaphs and bashing a couple of homos with my Louisville Slugger.

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412426]I appreciate the first 20 pictures of this girl. (yes I am being a bit sarcastic) she's cute. But really I wish there were more of a variety of pictures available from other girls on here. To be honest I have only seen one picture of a girl on here that floored me (of course she's no longer living here) go figure. Everything else has looked pretty sparse. The escort sites are all super imposed with photoshop. Just saying[/QUOTE]It's pretty obvious. Usually, she only exposes one boob. A liberal Chica would be butt naked.

Miamipro seems to think that Modelo VIP's camera capabilities are somehow to blame for the lack of other chicas posting herein. If MP had been around long enough, he'd know that getting lots of chicas to post and be involved on AP wasn't one of Jax's objectives, nor that of the inner core of old timers (a group I hope to join one day.

There are several wonderful women that are contributors to this site (Gysell, Ale, Lulo, Modelo, Bella and perhaps a few more. That said, the primary purpose of this site, as I understand it, is for the free exchange of information betwixt mongers.

One can find lots of great pics on other sites (a few good ones on this site too) however, if you do your homework with the info available on AP, you can figure out which chica's pics are good and which are phonies.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412427]So right wing whackos are fear mongers. Then you will have no problem providing us with half a dozen examples of right wing fear mongering.

While you are compiling that information, I will be starving old people, stealing candy from kids, kicking dogs, tossing styro-foam into my pond, using racial epitaphs and bashing a couple of homos with my Louisville Slugger. [/QUOTE]Enlightening you would take the better part of my life. Which I am not prepared to do, you will have to do that on your own.

Secondly I don't need to give you half a dozen examples one will do fine to prove my point.

Fear-mongering campaign in the USA. This one devoted to scaring Americans that they will be slaughtered if Guantanamo is closed and Terrorism suspects are brought into the USA for real trials. But the real fear-mongering is focused on all of the attacks that American communities will suffer if we imprison dangerous Terrorists inside the USA rather than in Guantanamo.

House Minority Leader John Boehner wants you to be frightened: "I think the first thing we have to remember is that we're talking about terrorists here. Do we bring them into our borders? " GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor warned: "Actively moving terrorists inside our borders weakens our security. Most families neither want nor need hundreds of terrorists seeking to kill Americans in their communities. "

Former Bush aide and chief speechwriter Marc Thiessen warned in The Washington Post that if there is a Terrorist attack on USA soil, Americans will blame Obama because he stopped torturing and closed Guantanamo, and Democrats will be "unelectable for a generation. "

All of this is pure fear-mongering.

The only other thing I will provide to you if you want me to, is a list of the successful terrorist we have housed and convicted here in the US.

Let me just add that the media is partially to blame too because they love to sensationalize everything and instill their own brand of fear.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412428]Miamipro seems to think that Modelo VIP's camera capabilities are somehow to blame for the lack of other chicas posting herein. If MP had been around long enough, he'd know that getting lots of chicas to post and be involved on AP wasn't one of Jax's objectives, nor that of the inner core of old timers (a group I hope to join one day.[/QUOTE]Actually thats not what I think at all. Its so funny how you read into things so differently and try to project your own thoughts and words as if they were my own. Sorry I haven't been around here as much or as long as you have but I actually have other things I do in life besides using this board. I was speaking on general terms. I was just venting that the pictures on this site (and no I haven't seen them all) have been of girls that are not really all that attractive. It would be nice to see a few more hotties. Of course what I think is hot might be different from what someone else thinks is hot. If during my time down here I come across any hotties of my own that I am able to photograph I will be more than happy to share.

Stop being such a hater. Its pretty sad all you do is sit around waiting to pounce on someone else's comment to try and make yourself look so righteous or superior on this board. If you are here in BA let me know. I will buy you a drink. Sounds like you might need one

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412429]Enlightening you would take the better part of my life. Which I am not prepared to do, you will have to do that on your own.[/quote]While enlighten does have multiple meanings, I was utilizing the original 'micro' meaning of enlighten to "remove the dimness or blindness" as it relates to this subject, which in common, contemporary usage means "to shed light upon. "

Were I seeking enlightenment, I doubt that I would turn to the Left or any of its propagandists, demagogues or false profits.

[quote=]Secondly I don't need to give you half a dozen examples one will do fine to prove my point.[/quote]Precisely why I asked for multiple examples, knowing in advance that you would pick one (poorly chosen) example and hold it out as indicative of a pattern as old as time itself. As a sign of good faith, I gave you half a dozen examples of fear mongering form the left, and you didn't even have to ask (then again, I may have used up your best shots.

[quote=]Fear-mongering campaign in the USA. This one devoted to scaring Americans that they will be slaughtered if Guantanamo is closed and Terrorism suspects are brought into the USA for real trials.[/quote]Come on. That is the best you can do? First, in order for you to give me an example, you would need to understand what fear mongering is. Simply put, it is exaggerating or lying for the purpose of frightening the citizens in order to influence their political views.

Surely, no American would have anything to fear from hosting the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Those people living and working in lower Manhattan would have no increased likelihood of seeing another terrorist attack as a mutli-year trial played out in their backyard. Nor would the tax payers (city, state and federal) have anything to fear from paying billions for the cost of such a show trial. Similarly, after giving KSM a global televised platform (OJ coverage on steroids) Americans here and abroad would be at no greater personal risk from the heightened tensions. Lastly, after BHO and Eric Holder held their show trial and lost through acquittal or hung jury, no Americans would be at greater risk for having our government prove to the world that you can kill 3,000 Americans and get a way with it. We would have shown the world that our own system has been perverted to the point where it prevents us from protecting ourselves and / or seeking justice. You're right, nothing here, must be fear mongering.

[quote=] But the real fear-mongering is focused on all of the attacks that American communities will suffer if we imprison dangerous Terrorists inside the USA rather than in Guantanamo.[/quote]Great point, except that while almost universally opposed by republicans, this BHO / Holder lead balloon was widely opposed by Democrats, too. FBI Director Mueler made a very good case as to the dangers of moving the 240 dirtbags from Gitmo to US prisons.

[quote=]House Minority Leader John Boehner wants you to be frightened: "I think the first thing we have to remember is that we're talking about terrorists here. Do we bring them into our borders? " GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor warned: "Actively moving terrorists inside our borders weakens our security. Most families neither want nor need hundreds of terrorists seeking to kill Americans in their communities. "[/quote]What is wrong or exaggerated about either of these quotes? While the first is a rhetorical question, the latter is a statement of fact, most Americans were opposed to the idea. This is not fear mongering.

May 20,2009, the US Senate voted 90-6 against funding the BHO / Holder plan for the Jihadist version of "Coming to America. " I am pretty sure that when this vote took place, there were not 90 republicans in the upper chamber (if so, I think Obamacare would have hit a few more snags.

"Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States, " declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the-Nev.



The funny thing about this quote is how this fear-mongering bastard, is tap dancing around the reality of what he and his ilk would do, if they weren't running for political cover.

[quote=]Former Bush aide and chief speechwriter Marc Thiessen warned in The Washington Post that if there is a Terrorist attack on USA soil, Americans will blame Obama because he stopped torturing and closed Guantanamo, and Democrats will be "unelectable for a generation. "

All of this is pure fear-mongering. [/quote]I disagree. He is stating an opinion that he believes BHO / Holder & Co's treatment of terrorists with kid gloves (not to mention all the bowing he did to leaders of Muslim Countries) has not been overlooked by the American people. Further, he believes that if there is an attack on American soil that the public will blame BHO. What is wrong with that? I am sure you blame Bush for 911. You might even believe he was in on it with Mossad.

[quote=]The only other thing I will provide to you if you want me to, is a list of the successful terrorist we have housed and convicted here in the US.[/quote]Treatment of terrorists as criminals by the US government (dating back to Beirut 1982 and perhaps further) exacerbated our vulnerability to terrorist attacks and contributed to the devastating results on 911. Previously, I have listed the many, many terror attacks on US interests, predating 911, all of were pursued as criminal cases.

[quote=]Let me just add that the media is partially to blame too because they love to sensationalize everything and instill their own brand of fear.[/QUOTE]That is like Preparation-H on a pulsating hemorrhoid (relief that is) at least we can agree on something. The media's predominant brand of fear is pro-Left and anti-right.

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412430]Stop being such a hater.[/quote]Other than a few sarcastic comments and pithy insults, please let me know where I actually spew hate. Most of my friends are liberals, some more hopeless than others. While I subscribe to Voltaire's construct of free speech and cling bitterly to your right to express it (I might go so far as to defend your right to free speech, that doesn't mean I am going to give someone a pass on disseminating propaganda, even if I like them.

[quote=] Its pretty sad all you do is sit around waiting to pounce on someone else's comment to try and make yourself look so righteous or superior on this board.[/quote]I enjoy political debate, I like the people within this community and love Bs As. I have no interest in being either righteous or superior, in fact I am quite comfortable in being neither. I do however, enjoy being right (as in correct) and winning.

[quote=]If you are here in BA let me know. I will buy you a drink. Sounds like you might need one[/QUOTE]I'll be on my way soon. I like the little umbrellas in my drinks.

Wild Walleye.

You did exactly what I thought you were going to do which is make political talking points about my example.

The bottom line is I gave you a fear mongering point as expressed from the right. I could give you five more. But whats the point? You would just try to justify those as false anyway.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412436]Other than a few sarcastic comments and pithy insults, please let me know where I actually spew hate. Most of my friends are liberals, some more hopeless than others. While I subscribe to Voltaire's construct of free speech and cling bitterly to your right to express it (I might go so far as to defend your right to free speech, that doesn't mean I am going to give someone a pass on disseminating propaganda, even if I like them.[/QUOTE]I never said you spewed hate. You you like exaggeration don't you? . "Hater" is just a figure of speech but I am sure you already know that.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412436]I enjoy political debate, I like the people within this community and love Bs As. I have no interest in being either righteous or superior, in fact I am quite comfortable in being neither. I do however, enjoy being right (as in correct) and winning.[/QUOTE]Political Debates can be fun and entertaining. And its ok if you want to try and be right. But where you fail is with your sarcastic comments and pithy insults. I am sure you have the aptitude of debating without trying to belittle people. Try it.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412436] I'll be on my way soon. I like the little umbrellas in my drinks.[/QUOTE]Cool I will have a Shirley Temple waiting for you.

[QUOTE=Miamipro; 412438]Wild Walleye.

You did exactly what I thought you were going to do which is make political talking points about my example.

The bottom line is I gave you a fear mongering point as expressed from the right. I could give you five more. But whats the point? You would just try to justify those as false anyway. [/QUOTE]Slow down, I am just a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, I need things explained in a succinct manner. I asked for an example of actual fear mongering and you gave me a highly-defensible political position.

Here let me help you with an example. If I were going to point out fear mongering on the left I would cite something like this:

"Republican legislative efforts are designed to strip benefits from the elderly, in favor of giving tax cuts to the rich. "

Generally, these two disparate legislative issues would be addressed under separate pieces of legislation.

The kernel of truth would be Republican support for tax cuts for all Americans (no need to go into the details of how wealthy Americans seem to hire more workers than the destitute. What is left out of the tax part of this argument is that it is impossible to cut taxes for those that don't pay any taxes (roughly 50% of the US) and that the top 1% of tax payers pay approximately 40% of all income taxes collected. Therefore, tax cuts for all Americans will result in those that pay more taxes getting the largest reductions.

The lie is taking Republican proposals for privatizing social security and morphing them into "cuts" for the elderly based on no factual evidence.

The fear mongering comes in when you combine these two things (an exaggeration / distortion) with an outright lie that leaves the reader to interpret "Republicans are taking money away from the elderly and forcing them to eat dog food to survive and then giving that money to fat-cats, who don't deserve it.