• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

actually, i believe his post effectively made
his point


tho probably not as he intended

Thanks, even for sharing your spelling challenges and learning disabillities with the rest of us..

Next time keep it to yourself.

...THOUGH"...

Yes 60 million morons voted for the least qualified candidate in 2012 and then at least a few showed up here to offer up really ignorant excuses of his expected failure.

Fantastic
 
All that time om your hands and you use it being told how to think. All that time on your hands on you use it being td what to think.

Creative ? Not so much.

Higly succeptible to empty plattitudes and irrational blame ? Yup..


All that time om your hands and you use it being told how to think.

Nobody's telling me how to think pal. It's a direct comment on people like YOU that have other people tell them what to think. Or did you not get that? I don't have a doctrine or ideology to follow. You do.

Creative ? Not so much.

...he said while offering nothing but sputtering conservative drivel as a response. Oh...that was creative.:roll:

Higly succeptible to empty plattitudes and irrational blame ? Yup..

"It's abundantly clear, he's a cheap sloganeer, I passed boredom bout three days ago" :2wave:
 
At the end of the day the President is held responsible for policy decisions, especially those he initially backed and supported.

Bob Woodward: Sequester Was Obama's Idea | RealClearPolitics

That boat won't float pal. Since when do the Republicans act on any idea by Obama. He proposed a drastic situation that would force both parties to resolve the issue. They both accepted that challenge. They had every opportunity to reject it, but they didn't. Boehner and the Repubs are calling something they all voted for, a danger to our National security, a job killer, and something that will plunge us back into recession. Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted from the Sequestor plan. It was by design intended for both sides to reach a compromise which the Pubs refuse to do. So now you have the problem of justifying why you voted for something that you knew was terrible and a threat to National Security? Nice work. :doh The game is not checkers. It's Chess.
 
Worried ?

Your President is running around like Chiken Little claming 300k furloughs from the Pentagon if sequestration goes through.

Actually the Pentagon is saying that. And it's 800,000.

Pentagon: Furloughs for civilian workers if forced cuts go into effect - CNN.com

You really should start using Google for a change.

Continued deficit spending and inflating the bond market is the best you guys can do after 4 years of miserable economic conditions.

Well, that did bring us the boom years of the Bush years. Furthermore, why do you believe that reduced net aggregate demand actually leads to more jobs? Did the economy under Hoover expand after he signed the bill to engage in the dirty trade wars which decimated the export market as well as cutting spending? After all, if you think that we should cut spending to boost the economy why did Hoover's policies actually turn a recession into a depression? Not that I expect an intelligent answer here. This is more for everyone else.
 
At the end of the day the President is held responsible for policy decisions, especially those he initially backed and supported.

As is the speaker of the house who proclaimed that he got 98% of what he wanted when he got sequester.

You know how stupid this whole thing is?? There is nothing stopping congress from NOT letting it happen. They voted to do it. They can vote to undo it. Just repeal it.
 
Either we're a nations of morons or the pole was skewed.

Your choice.

Fortunately the morons were in the minority and lost the election. Why would we want a bunch of irrational jerks running the country? As for the polls...you didn't believe the polls in the election, and now you don't believe these? Get out of your bubble and join the reality based community.
 
We'll lose the house and the Democrats will lose the economy....whats left of it.

Is that something your proud of ? More people on Govt.services as our debt and defecit rise and our economy shrinks ?

No matter the pole, your ideology doesn't work as we are currently seeing evidence of.

Enjoy the misery

And the sky is falling! :roll:
 
Nobody's telling me how to think pal. It's a direct comment on people like YOU that have other people tell them what to think. Or did you not get that? I don't have a doctrine or ideology to follow. You do.

Clearly, if they had you would make some sense once in a while



...he said while offering nothing but sputtering conservative drivel as a response. Oh...that was creative.:roll:

And Conservative sputtering and drivel still easily rebuts your empty rhetoric.



"It's abundantly clear, he's a cheap sloganeer, I passed boredom bout three days ago" :2wave:
[/QUOTE]

...pot meet kettle..
 
That boat won't float pal. Since when do the Republicans act on any idea by Obama. He proposed a drastic situation that would force both parties to resolve the issue. They both accepted that challenge. They had every opportunity to reject it, but they didn't. Boehner and the Repubs are calling something they all voted for, a danger to our National security, a job killer, and something that will plunge us back into recession. Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted from the Sequestor plan. It was by design intended for both sides to reach a compromise which the Pubs refuse to do. So now you have the problem of justifying why you voted for something that you knew was terrible and a threat to National Security? Nice work. :doh The game is not checkers. It's Chess.

LOL both sides hated it. The idea was to have something so bad both sides would reach an agreement to get around it. Your sense of denial is unbelievably strong.
 
You know how stupid this whole thing is?? There is nothing stopping congress from NOT letting it happen. They voted to do it. They can vote to undo it. Just repeal it.

Adagio, President Obama said he would veto any bill that would repeal the sequestration.

The sequestration idea came from the Obama White House.

Obama signed it in to law.

Personally I think it's close to treason using our national defense as a pawn. If the Defense budget is only 20 % of the federal budget, why should the military take 50 % of the cuts if sequestration happens ?

During Obama's first term he had already initiated $500 Billion dollars in defense cuts and he wants more !

As you have pointed out before, G.W. Bush kept the funding to fight a war against terrorist and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan separate from the normal defense budget.

When Obama became POTUS he combined the cost of fighting the wars in to the defense budget. This should have been done day one on 9-12-01.

That's why when you look at defense spending today it seems on paper that defense spending has increased under Obama but you don't see the huge defense cuts Obama has already made.

I'm one of those conservatives who believed that there should have been a war tax that every American paid and that means every American including the 48 % who pay no individual income taxes at all.
 
And the sky is falling! :roll:

The sky hit the ground about 4 years ago when your incompetent President ignored all reason and focused on passing a private sector killing health Care Law. He also passed a stimulus law that was supposed to go to "infrastructure" and create "shovel ready jobs" but instead he parsed it out to public sector unions and bankrupt green energy companies.

You folks whined about a inherited debt of 1.3 trillion but failed to note that close to 800 billion was TARP.....that Obama voted for. You pushed the narrative of "tax the rich" as a way to increase revenue knowing that it was a manufactured concept to divide the class's and get reeeaally dumb people to vote for a Democrat.

You pushed the lie that Obama after 4 years is suffering from a "Great Bush Recession " when the collapse in 2008 was caused by a Democrat mandated bubble that was caused by Clintons 1995 Executive Order that changed the way banks conformed to the CRA rules and HUD who was given regulatory power over the GSE's to force them to buy up massive amounts in junk loans on the tax payers dime and then bundle those loans with good mortgages and push them out onto investors. Some of you are so ethically and morally corrupt you blame that on the banks.

The Liberals have nothing of substance to offer when their confronted with reasoned objective data other than resort to childish antics and tactics.

You all cheered the 3.1 GDP numbers until it was pointed out to you that it was because of massive Govt spending and when the economy shrank you surpassed all expectations and blamed the lack of spending when total Fed outlays were 900 billion in the third quarter. That was an increase from the second quarter.

You guys actually argue the debt isn't a big deal and we should be spending more when you have no concept of the damage that's being done to future economies.

The absolute best after 4 years that your ideology can offer is to run the debt up to 16 trillion, encourage a Central Bank to falsely inflate the short term bond market with printed capital, increase the number of people dependent on the State, offer no net new jobs and STILL sink an economy as 50 million people are currently on food stamps, 1 in 6 in poverty and almost 9 million jobs have been deleted form the labor force.

You accuse Conservatives and the GOP of racism but ignore the disproportionate high unemployment rate for blacks.

Your States are bankrupt, your politicians are pathological and your cities are corrupted and filled with black on black violence, but for years you ignore it waiting for the 20 innocent white children to be gunned down by a lunatic to push your insipid and worthless gun control agenda.

So try to remember this when you continue to post more drivel.

People can smell a manure salesman a mile away. And no one want's any thing he's offering and at the core of every Liberal is the remnants of at least one great Compromise.
 
Adagio, President Obama said he would veto any bill that would repeal the sequestration.

The sequestration idea came from the Obama White House.

Obama signed it in to law

The House also wrote it.

The PowerPoint That Proves It

Personally I think it's close to treason using our national defense as a pawn. If the Defense budget is only 20 % of the federal budget, why should the military take 50 % of the cuts if sequestration happens?

It's also treason to hold the economy as a pawn. That didn't stop the GOP. Furthermore, Defense spending has expanded massively over the past decade. Why shouldn't the military take 50% of the cuts with massive growth since 2001?

During Obama's first term he had already initiated $500 Billion dollars in defense cuts and he wants more!

Actually, if you paid attention to what Obama actually said, he doesn't want more. He has come out repetitively against it. Interestingly enough, ACTUAL deficit hawks in the GOP are for the cuts.

I'm one of those conservatives who believed that there should have been a war tax that every American paid and that means every American including the 48 % who pay no individual income taxes at all.

Aside from the fact that would complicate an existing system more, it's not a bad idea. But the GOP in the past decade hasn't really had any taste for balanced budgets.
 
The House also wrote it.

The PowerPoint That Proves It



It's also treason to hold the economy as a pawn. That didn't stop the GOP. Furthermore, Defense spending has expanded massively over the past decade. Why shouldn't the military take 50% of the cuts with massive growth since 2001?



Actually, if you paid attention to what Obama actually said, he doesn't want more. He has come out repetitively against it. Interestingly enough, ACTUAL deficit hawks in the GOP are for the cuts.



Aside from the fact that would complicate an existing system more, it's not a bad idea. But the GOP in the past decade hasn't really had any taste for balanced budgets.

Your moniker suits you well...
 
Furthermore, Defense spending has expanded massively over the past decade. Why shouldn't the military take 50% of the cuts with massive growth since 2001? QUOTE]

Because there are a whole lot of Islamist who want to kill you.

Also the Peoples Republic China plan to deny the U.S. Navy free transit through the South China Sea in the next ten or twenty years. In fact they are planing to challenge all navies. That's why almost every country in the Western Pacific / Eastern Asia are rearming and building up their navies while Obama is slashing our navy.

Those defense cuts that Obama has already made during his first administration will have a significant negative impact upon our national security twenty, thirty years in the future. The Air Force is on record saying fifty years.
 
Get back to me when your boys eat as big a hamburger on this issue as this lady just did the other day shown in this four minute vid...



This is soooooooo worth the watching.


Which has nothing to do with the point that I had made. However, if you want to find croneyism in housing, as has been noted, the four top recipients in the Senate of funds from the housing crooks during the bubble were Obama, Kerry, Dodd, and Hillary Clinton. ;)
 
Which has nothing to do with the point that I had made. However, if you want to find croneyism in housing, as has been noted, the four top recipients in the Senate of funds from the housing crooks during the bubble were Obama, Kerry, Dodd, and Hillary Clinton. ;)

that is interesting
how about a cite for it
 
that is interesting
how about a cite for it

Earlier in the thread somewhere. You can Google some results on it quicker than I can dig it up.

Regardless, Warren was grandstanding. I can't recall the last time DoJ went full trial on anything corporate. And I don't know that the end would justify the means. If you can't put an actual entity in jail, then what's the point ? Its a civil case ! In regular life, how many civil cases settle ? Prolly over 95%. Her only valid point is that Government will make examples of the little guy, which I hate to admit, but that is the nature of every level of enforcement against the masses, cause you can't catch everybody. Government has to do that. But she was not advocating to end that. She was advocating showboating nonsense. To champion her "gotcha" is misguided.
 
that is interesting
how about a cite for it

Its public knowledge Dodd was a huge recipient of money from Countrywide, they were his top donor for re-election.

How about this:
Countrywide Mortgage Scandal - SourceWatch
Participants in the V.I.P. program included Senators Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.) Kent Conrad (D-ND), former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and former U.N. ambassador and assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke. These individuals allegedly received better mortgage offers than ordinary buyers, leading to half point mortgage reductions and the waving of fees. [1]
 
Earlier in the thread somewhere. You can Google some results on it quicker than I can dig it up.

Regardless, Warren was grandstanding. I can't recall the last time DoJ went full trial on anything corporate. And I don't know that the end would justify the means. If you can't put an actual entity in jail, then what's the point ? Its a civil case ! In regular life, how many civil cases settle ? Prolly over 95%. Her only valid point is that Government will make examples of the little guy, which I hate to admit, but that is the nature of every level of enforcement against the masses, cause you can't catch everybody. Government has to do that. But she was not advocating to end that. She was advocating showboating nonsense. To champion her "gotcha" is misguided
.
searching thread for "dodd" recovered eight entries
turns out only post 1042 addressed your assertion
YOUR post
and again, there was no cite proving those democrats were the most funded politicians of the investment industry
however, as post 1048 power rob shared with us the republicans he found to actually be the pols who most benefited from the investment industry's largess
based on my experience to date, i will have to rely on rob's presentation instead of yours unless you can offer a cite showing your statement to be correct and rob's to be in error
 
The sky hit the ground about 4 years ago when your incompetent President ignored all reason and focused on passing a private sector killing health Care Law. He also passed a stimulus law that was supposed to go to "infrastructure" and create "shovel ready jobs" but instead he parsed it out to public sector unions and bankrupt green energy companies.

You folks whined about a inherited debt of 1.3 trillion but failed to note that close to 800 billion was TARP.....that Obama voted for. You pushed the narrative of "tax the rich" as a way to increase revenue knowing that it was a manufactured concept to divide the class's and get reeeaally dumb people to vote for a Democrat.

You pushed the lie that Obama after 4 years is suffering from a "Great Bush Recession " when the collapse in 2008 was caused by a Democrat mandated bubble that was caused by Clintons 1995 Executive Order that changed the way banks conformed to the CRA rules and HUD who was given regulatory power over the GSE's to force them to buy up massive amounts in junk loans on the tax payers dime and then bundle those loans with good mortgages and push them out onto investors. Some of you are so ethically and morally corrupt you blame that on the banks.

The Liberals have nothing of substance to offer when their confronted with reasoned objective data other than resort to childish antics and tactics.

You all cheered the 3.1 GDP numbers until it was pointed out to you that it was because of massive Govt spending and when the economy shrank you surpassed all expectations and blamed the lack of spending when total Fed outlays were 900 billion in the third quarter. That was an increase from the second quarter.

You guys actually argue the debt isn't a big deal and we should be spending more when you have no concept of the damage that's being done to future economies.

The absolute best after 4 years that your ideology can offer is to run the debt up to 16 trillion, encourage a Central Bank to falsely inflate the short term bond market with printed capital, increase the number of people dependent on the State, offer no net new jobs and STILL sink an economy as 50 million people are currently on food stamps, 1 in 6 in poverty and almost 9 million jobs have been deleted form the labor force.

You accuse Conservatives and the GOP of racism but ignore the disproportionate high unemployment rate for blacks.

Your States are bankrupt, your politicians are pathological and your cities are corrupted and filled with black on black violence, but for years you ignore it waiting for the 20 innocent white children to be gunned down by a lunatic to push your insipid and worthless gun control agenda.

So try to remember this when you continue to post more drivel.

People can smell a manure salesman a mile away. And no one want's any thing he's offering and at the core of every Liberal is the remnants of at least one great Compromise.

First thing on the agenda is to separate the wheat (your opinions) from your outright lies.

“You folks whined about a inherited debt of 1.3 trillion but failed to note that close to 800 billion was TARP.....that Obama voted for.’

When Tarp was started it was authorized for $600 billion, not the $800 billion that you claim in your error filled post. It was then reduced to $475 billion, then on October of 2012 it was reduced again by the Congressional Budget Office to $431 billion.

This, incidentally is less than the Savings and loans debacle (fraud) of the 80’s exacerbated by the Reagan administrations headlong dive into the deep part of the deregulation pool (sound familiar?)
This amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP.

While tarp cost was less than 1 percent of GDP. Bytheway, that has been 90% repaid as of Dec. 11, 2012, 7:27 a.m. EST

Now to clean up your second lie…well not a full-throatd lie, but close enough to be called a lie by the likes of fox News fav source. “Some“.

You pushed the lie that Obama after 4 years is suffering from a "Great Bush Recession " when the collapse in 2008 was caused by a Democrat mandated bubble that was caused by Clintons 1995 Executive Order that changed the way banks conformed to the CRA rules and HUD who was given regulatory power over the GSE's to force them to buy up massive amounts in junk loans on the tax payers dime and then bundle those loans with good mortgages and push them out onto investors.

OK. itsa fact that BJ signed said “Executive Order“, a **** up of major proportions.:( But guess whose administration ran with the ball to the great recession’s goal line, spun the ball and did an end zone dance? If you guessed the bush administration you won.

Ask yourself why William Donaldson(a Republican with a capitol R) was forced to quit in 2005, when he wanted stiffer regulations on mutual and hedge funds? Then of course one has to ask why the bush administration did little to curb the practices of mortgage brokers? After all, they had eight years.

Now your here bitching about BO not cleaning up in four years, the mess left by bushes eight years of incompetence.sad.:roll:
 
Last edited:
searching thread for "dodd" recovered eight entries
turns out only post 1042 addressed your assertion
YOUR post
and again, there was no cite proving those democrats were the most funded politicians of the investment industry
however, as post 1048 power rob shared with us the republicans he found to actually be the pols who most benefited from the investment industry's largess
based on my experience to date, i will have to rely on rob's presentation instead of yours unless you can offer a cite showing your statement to be correct and rob's to be in error

Bubba, you dont know how to read the dang data. They list the #1 industry donor for each pol, they dont indicate who gets top dollars from that industry.
Btw its pretty dishonest of you not to just search for Dodd on opensecrets.org.

This link if for Dodd from 2003-2008. Chris Dodd: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2008 | OpenSecrets
Securities & Investment

$4,243,346
 
Because there are a whole lot of Islamist who want to kill you.

That's not a new thing. Doesn't mean we have to spend more money then the next largest (15?) countries combined.

Also the Peoples Republic China plan to deny the U.S. Navy free transit through the South China Sea in the next ten or twenty years. In fact they are planing to challenge all navies. That's why almost every country in the Western Pacific / Eastern Asia are rearming and building up their navies while Obama is slashing our navy.

They can do that right now. Sea skimmers armed with nuclear warheads can deny large parts of the Pacific to the US navy who is unlikely to risk carrier battle groups. We really don't have an answer to that short on relying upon China's unwillingness to use nuclear weapons first.

And perhaps you think that more equals better. How did the Zulus fair against the British who were armed with machine guns despite horridly outnumbering them?

A single Russian bomber can carry sufficient nuclear weapons to wipe out huge portions of Japan. A single Russian submarine carries enough firepower to kill at least 50 million Americans.

Those defense cuts that Obama has already made during his first administration will have a significant negative impact upon our national security twenty, thirty years in the future. The Air Force is on record saying fifty years.

Every defense cut will have a negative impact upon defense. That does not mean the DoD has a blank check.
 
That's not a new thing. Doesn't mean we have to spend more money then the next largest (15?) countries combined.



They can do that right now. Sea skimmers armed with nuclear warheads can deny large parts of the Pacific to the US navy who is unlikely to risk carrier battle groups. We really don't have an answer to that short on relying upon China's unwillingness to use nuclear weapons first.

And perhaps you think that more equals better. How did the Zulus fair against the British who were armed with machine guns despite horridly outnumbering them?

A single Russian bomber can carry sufficient nuclear weapons to wipe out huge portions of Japan. A single Russian submarine carries enough firepower to kill at least 50 million Americans.



Every defense cut will have a negative impact upon defense. That does not mean the DoD has a blank check.

You have no knowledge what you talking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom