Repubs Running Out of Ways to Attack Obama

[Ausm]

LOL. The chart's not from the national review, your brilliance. It's from Obama's own 2013 budget.

I explicitly said the National Review link was for my fellow righties.

But it from an article from the National Reviews website is it not? Which means they condone the findings....

 

[Atreus21]

But it from an article from the National Reviews website is it not? Which means they condone the findings....

No, the opinion piece is commenting on Paul Ryan's berating of Tim Geithner on Obama's proposed budget.

The chart in question was the subject of that argument on C-SPAN.

I'd provide the link, but youtube is blocked at work...

 

[Nemesis 1]

Which one of you ardent supporters penned this?

“Murdering, Lying, Thieving, Rat-F*** Republican Pieces of Sub-Amphibian S***”…

Ah, the mind of a progressive laid bare...

LOL . The Dem-ons are getting restless. Soon their true nature will be exposed. Along with the far right. I really can't stomach much more from either type. 13 major earthquakes in the world yesterday. Today looks to be just as big of a day. All mag 5+. Its time you people stop playing politics and get your lives inorder for the destroyer has returned. The complete truth is in the world . Its time to step up . or go down . Its all your choice. Moving away from quakes . Go to Utube. Put 2012 floods. Its alarming . But if you really listen . You will here about each countries crops. You can take anything away from man . Except Food and water. The USA will suffer a terriable drought in 2012 in the corn belt. The east coast will have Storms and floods unlike anything that has been seen in 3600 years. So it was written so shall it be done.

 

[Ausm]

No, the opinion piece is commenting on Paul Ryan's berating of Tim Geithner on Obama's proposed budget.

The chart in question was the subject of that argument on C-SPAN.

I'd provide the link, but youtube is blocked at work...

You need to work in IT like I do then you wouldn't have that problem.

 

[werepossum]

There is always a disconnect between political attacks and reality.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will ever "run out" of ways to attack each other. Whether or not their attacks have any truth/reality/validity behind them is highly variable, however.

This is true.

I'm not impressed with Obama, but he's not been nearly as damaging as I had feared. I'm of the opinion that in today's world, where so much of our economy is driven by consumer consumption and yet most of those consumer goods are imported, where energy has become quite expensive, where government consumes and provides a large portion of our economy and borrows roughly 40% of its spending, the roaring recoveries of yesteryear are unlikely if not impossible. So when we are discussing Obama versus Romney or Gingrich or Santorum, we're not taking the difference between 1% real growth and 8% real growth, but probably between 1% real growth and perhaps 1.5% or 2% real growth.

 

[Texashiker]

This is true.

I'm not impressed with Obama, but he's not been nearly as damaging as I had feared.

President signing a bill into law (National Defense Authorization Act) that allows the US government to detain US citizens without due process is not "damaging"?

Where do you live that stripping citizens of their right to due process is ok?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Considering the monstrous flaming bag of dogshit he was left on his doorstep to put out, while I'm not entirely happy with everything he's done, I doubt anyone could have done any better, given the economy, the wars, the spiraling unemployment rate.
Even the pugs savior ronnie would have raised taxes on the 1%

 

[werepossum]

President signing a bill into law (National Defense Authorization Act) that allows the US government to detain US citizens without due process is not "damaging"?

Where do you live that stripping citizens of their right to due process is ok?

Damaging, but not nearly so much as I had feared. Read Dreams from my father or watch his interview on "positive rights" versus negative rights and learn the true meaning of "damaging". Besides, it's not as though McCain wouldn't have signed the same bill. So would every current Republican contender except Ron Paul. Very few politicians will voluntarily turn down increases to their own power.

 

[Ausm]

Considering the monstrous flaming bag of dogshit he was left on his doorstep to put out, while I'm not entirely happy with everything he's done, I doubt anyone could have done any better, given the economy, the wars, the spiraling unemployment rate.
Even the pugs savior ronnie would have raised taxes on the 1%

Ronnie Raygun raised taxes 7 out of the 8 years during his administration for a total of 11 times. He also had the largest tax increase

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133456120/Remembering-Ronald-Reagan

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record

 

[ky54]

Obama begged us for the job and made all kinds of promises of things he could do to make sure things like the unemployment would never go over 8%, etc. It's not like someone put a gun to Obama's head to be president.

 

[cybrsage]

Wow, this thread took a whopping 13 posts (OP included) until someone tried to shift the conversation away from Obama. The other surprise is that they used McCain instead of Bush.

 

[Atreus21]

You need to work in IT like I do then you wouldn't have that problem.

I do. It's blocked. Company wide. No exceptions.

 

[Texashiker]

Ronnie Raygun raised taxes 7 out of the 8 years during his administration for a total of 11 times. He also had the largest tax increase

The president can not raise or lower taxes.

All tax bills have to be introduced by the house of representatives.

 

[soundforbjt]

The president can not raise or lower taxes.

All tax bills have to be introduced by the house of representatives.

He signed them into law. They wouldn't have been raised without his siggy on them.

 

[highland145]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
CONGRESSIONAL MAKEUP DURING REAGAN YEARS

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]97th Congress (1981-1983)
Senate: 53(R); 46(D); 1(other)
House: 242(D); 189(R)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]98th Congress (1983-1985)
Senate: 54(R); 46(D)
House: 268(D); 167(R)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]99th Congress (1985-1987)
Senate: 53(R); 47 (D)
House: 253 (D); 182(R)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]100th Congress (1987-1989)
Senate: 55(D); 45(R)
House: 258 (D); 177 (R)[/FONT]

 

[JEDIYoda]

The Republican are doing a fine job without the Democrats getting involved....as it is right now Obama has nothing to fear...

Actually the Republicans are desperate. There is no current candidate who one on one can beat Obama......

I am not saying that there is no Republican who can beat Obama.......but if the Republicans were smart there is one issue that they quite easily can rally the nation around in order to beat Obama.....National Pride!! They need to grab the Obama making apologies for the Koran burning -- even though in my opinion that should not have been done. There are correct ways to get rid of the Koran without in the Mulim`s eyes desecrating it.

As I see it that is the only issue that can beat Obama.......
There are still enough people on both sides of the fence who do not agree with Obama apologizing!!

You never hear an apology from the Muslims when the Bible or the Torah is desecrated...
but thats OK.....some would claim the United States is not a Christian nation so it doesn`t matter.......

 

[monovillage]

I do. It's blocked. Company wide. No exceptions.

You didn't understand, he's in IT and a lefty. The rules don't and wouldn't apply to him. He'd make sure he has access regardless of what agreements he'd made, it's how liberals roll.

 

[Ausm]

I do. It's blocked. Company wide. No exceptions.

Then get a different job you are oppressed.

 

[Matt1970]

Empty ideological claptrap. Obama has done a remarkable job, considering that Repubs have attempted to thwart every effort he's made.

What will Repubs do instead? Double down on their ideology of failure, finish off the middle class on the altar of Greed at the top?

Even though Obama has not followed though with the vast majoity of his campaign promises it's all good as long as it isn't the other side on the White House.

 

[Ausm]

You didn't understand, he's in IT and a lefty. The rules don't and wouldn't apply to him. He'd make sure he has access regardless of what agreements he'd made, it's how liberals roll.

You sound angry and frustrated? Are you a Teapublican by chance?

 

[Ausm]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
CONGRESSIONAL MAKEUP DURING REAGAN YEARS

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]97th Congress (1981-1983)
Senate: 53(R); 46(D); 1(other)
House: 242(D); 189(R)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]98th Congress (1983-1985)
Senate: 54(R); 46(D)
House: 268(D); 167(R)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]99th Congress (1985-1987)
Senate: 53(R); 47 (D)
House: 253 (D); 182(R)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]100th Congress (1987-1989)
Senate: 55(D); 45(R)
House: 258 (D); 177 (R)[/FONT]

Did someone force Ronnie to sign them into law?

 

[highland145]

Did someone force Ronnie to sign them into law?

I bow to your wisdom of the ways of Washington.

 

[Ausm]

I bow to your wisdom of the ways of Washington.

Then why did you post that information when you obviously knew that Ronnie had to sign it or is this a headfake duhvert to blame all tax increases on Democrats?

 

[highland145]

Then why did you post that information when you obviously knew that Ronnie had to sign it or is this a headfake duhvert to blame all tax increases on Democrats?

soundforbjt was putting it all on Ronnie when that's not the case at all with any president or the legislative process.

It was a little poke at sound because the Dems held the house ~60/40 during that time.

If a budget were solely the President's responsibility, why haven't we had one since............

 

[soundforbjt]

soundforbjt was putting it all on Ronnie when that's not the case at all with any president or the legislative process.

It was a little poke at sound because the Dems held the house ~60/40 during that time.

If a budget were solely the President's responsibility, why haven't we had one since............

I also notice from your post that there was a repub controlled Senate that went along with the House. :sneaky: (poke back)