- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,713
- Reaction score
- 1,907
- Location
- The Derby City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Are you talking about the "read my lips" guy?
Absolutely. Let's hope this one only gets one term too.
Are you talking about the "read my lips" guy?
How were those policies, which he ran on, not supported by a majority if he won?Very good analysis. It truly is inevitable, after all. Combine a political novice like Obama, wildly inept and unpopular congressional leaders like Ried and Polosi, and an agenda (most of it, such as gitmo, healthcare, prosecute the CIA, immigration amnesty, etc) that was NEVER supported by a majority of voters...and the result was never in doubt. Failure.
So they'll put the blame where it does the least harm to their cause - on the President, because he's replaceable. Let the GOP have their time from '12 to '16, then try it again.
Absolutely. Let's hope this one only gets one term too.
Absolutely. Let's hope this one only gets one term too.
How were those policies, which he ran on, not supported by a majority if he won?
I wouldn't count him out yet. We still have 3 years to see how things go.
With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Or we could just cut social spending.
No, he's trying to justify the Messiah's tax increases.
"But look!! You're making more money!!! it's only a little bit of taxes in comparison!"
So you are trying to tell me people in the highest tax bracket would not be willing to pay 1.5% more in taxes if their income went up by 3%? Plese note they are 1.5% ahead and maybe some pot holes on the roads can get fixed as well.
Or we could just cut social spending.
With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Or military industrial complex spending. I'm not talking about the military I'm talking about the military industrial complex like ike talked about.
Yeah, I love how during the elections people like McCain and Palin were forced to go through dozens of "hostile" interviews with the likes of CNN, NBC, ABC and MSNBC, but Obama just to ignore them entirely by ignoring Fox. It's a real disadvantage for Republicans; they must do tough interviews but democrats have plenty of safe-havens.
That's a tough interview? O'Reilly is a populist. That's the easiest interview on Fox.
That's a tough interview? O'Reilly is a populist. That's the easiest interview on Fox.
Can you say maximum pwnage?
Why does him being a "populist" make it easier?
I really wish there was a special sarcasm font for the Internet.:mrgreen:
If income goes up by 3% and taxes go up by 1.5%....well you do the math
Ill still take my 1.5% and pot holes fixed so my rolls royce doesn't get a flat
With trillions in national debt, we will have to raise taxes at some point unless we cut military defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afrgan that conservatives were so eager to get into. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I think we would be better served if we got out of England, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc. Places where we have no National security issues anymore.
I agree completely. There are a lot of places we no longer have a strategic interest. I can think of one that would save us right in New York, the UN. There's a lot of other foreign aid we could stop too. That does not include Honduras.