• 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!

Condi Rice Blasts Obama on Weakness, Leadership

What I don't get is the beef about the sequester from the right. It's not like the House couldn't pass a bill eliminating it that Obama would sign in a heartbeat. So who is REALLY responsible for the sequester taking effect? The same people beefing about it, that's who.

As Bob Woodward discovered, the sequestration came from the Obama White House. It's Obama's sequestration. It's what Obama wanted where 50 % of the cuts would be from national defense so Obama could speed up his dismantling of the U.S. military.

Obama to Veto Any Attempt to Roll Back Automatic Cuts After Committee's Inability to Reach Debt Deal

>" President Obama said he would veto any effort by lawmakers to repeal a requirement for $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts to be triggered after the Super Committee failed to agree on terms to save the country $1.2 trillion over a 10-year span.

“There will be no easy off ramps on this one,” Obama said at an afternoon press conference..."<


Has anyone else noticed that liberal social engineering of the military has been exempt from sequestration ?
 
What I don't get is the beef about the sequester from the right. It's not like the House couldn't pass a bill eliminating it that Obama would sign in a heartbeat. So who is REALLY responsible for the sequester taking effect? The same people beefing about it, that's who.

It was Obama's idea. Talk to your member of Congress.
 
Oh, please. Not the "all politicians lie" excuse.

I was trying to be gracious. But since you want to make a stink about it, that statement can be viewed in another light. Actually when you think about it, although the Obama administration put the idea of a sequester forward, they did it as a bluff, thinking there was no way Republicans would agree to cuts in military spending. However, the Republicans were the ones who actually took it and started seriously advocating it as a way to cut spending. So Obama was right, it was actually the Republicans idea, because they are the ones who really wanted to do it.
 
Why would Republicans deliberately target White voters when they know it would be a losing proposition? Do you have any evidence at all to support this wild claim?

Why do they do it? Because they are as dumb as a bag of hammers. That's just like asking why a guy smokes cigarettes although he knows it's killing him. They are addicts. They are addicted to their deceit. They don't know what else to do. Because what they really want to do is give rich people all the money and let the rich "trickle down" to everyone else, they don't have anything else to resort to but appeal to the racist sentiments in some people. That's why.

The evidence is O'Reilly's statement. The deal is this, you people had a guru by the name of Lee Atwater. The great one, Atwater, taught you people how to talk in racist code language without really coming out and saying it. When Bill O'Reilly says that white people are no longer the majority and that the non-whites want stuff, what he's doing is speaking in code. What he really means is that we don't have enough white people to deceive that black people want to take white people's money anymore.

Hell everyone wants stuff. White Republicans like John McCain want stuff. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia wants stuff. Abdullah wants the US to attack Syria. And because Abdullah has a lot of money, and people like John McCain want the US government to do all it can to give rich people more money, John McCain starts publicly advocating for the US to attack Syria. Then when Obama won't do it, McCain says it's because Obama is weak. Hell, I'm sick of the US fighting wars on behalf of people like Abdullah. Yeah, I want stuff. I want that money that the government uses to bomb people on behalf of Abdullah to go to educating people. But if I say that, you people go, "oh, you are just a black guy that want's stuff."

Then you ask why Republicans are so stupid. They are just like that. Dumb as Dora.

So, there you go.
 
As Bob Woodward discovered, the sequestration came from the Obama White House. It's Obama's sequestration. It's what Obama wanted where 50 % of the cuts would be from national defense so Obama could speed up his dismantling of the U.S. military.

Obama to Veto Any Attempt to Roll Back Automatic Cuts After Committee's Inability to Reach Debt Deal

>" President Obama said he would veto any effort by lawmakers to repeal a requirement for $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts to be triggered after the Super Committee failed to agree on terms to save the country $1.2 trillion over a 10-year span.

“There will be no easy off ramps on this one,” Obama said at an afternoon press conference..."<


Has anyone else noticed that liberal social engineering of the military has been exempt from sequestration ?

Thanks for that blast from the past. 5 years in the past, when Congress was supposed to be negotiating "targeted cuts" that would make the sequester go away. Since Republicans refused to negotiate any budget that included revenue increases we got the sequester. It was Republicans idea to actually implement the sequester and Obama has already signed a new budget that DOES reduce many parts of it.
 
Why do they do it? Because they are as dumb as a bag of hammers. That's just like asking why a guy smokes cigarettes although he knows it's killing him. They are addicts. They are addicted to their deceit. They don't know what else to do. Because what they really want to do is give rich people all the money and let the rich "trickle down" to everyone else, they don't have anything else to resort to but appeal to the racist sentiments in some people. That's why.

The evidence is O'Reilly's statement. The deal is this, you people had a guru by the name of Lee Atwater. The great one, Atwater, taught you people how to talk in racist code language without really coming out and saying it. When Bill O'Reilly says that white people are no longer the majority and that the non-whites want stuff, what he's doing is speaking in code. What he really means is that we don't have enough white people to deceive that black people want to take white people's money anymore.

Hell everyone wants stuff. White Republicans like John McCain want stuff. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia wants stuff. Abdullah wants the US to attack Syria. And because Abdullah has a lot of money, and people like John McCain want the US government to do all it can to give rich people more money, John McCain starts publicly advocating for the US to attack Syria. Then when Obama won't do it, McCain says it's because Obama is weak. Hell, I'm sick of the US fighting wars on behalf of people like Abdullah. Yeah, I want stuff. I want that money that the government uses to bomb people on behalf of Abdullah to go to educating people. But if I say that, you people go, "oh, you are just a black guy that want's stuff."

Then you ask why Republicans are so stupid. They are just like that. Dumb as Dora.

So, there you go.

It was very stupid for them to paint themselves into a corner like they have. Instead of broadening their appeal, their base has moved radically to the right, further tightening the noose they placed on their head.
 
It was very stupid for them to paint themselves into a corner like they have. Instead of broadening their appeal, their base has moved radically to the right, further tightening the noose they placed on their head.

Indeed. What is amazing is that when you point it out, some try to pretend as if it doesn't exist.
 
Thanks for that blast from the past. 5 years in the past, when Congress was supposed to be negotiating "targeted cuts" that would make the sequester go away. Since Republicans refused to negotiate any budget that included revenue increases we got the sequester. It was Republicans idea to actually implement the sequester and Obama has already signed a new budget that DOES reduce many parts of it.

Five years in the past ? :lamo

I guess that "new math" they taught you in school didn't work out to well. 2011 wasn't five years ago. Just more liberal revisionism I suppose.

>" Despite this conclusive evidence that Obama himself proposed the sequester, the media sat on its hands as the President falsely excoriated the Republicans for originating and insisting on the sequester. They stood by as the President ludicrously accused the Republicans of deliberately inflicting harm on sick children so that their filthy rich supporters could have their corporate jets. The press spread the myth that the President was above the fray and was working hard to save ordinary Americans from his vicious foes..."<

White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester - Forbes



>" The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved..."<

Bob Woodward: Obama’s sequester deal-changer - The Washington Post
 
\

Breitbart? Really? You attempt a serious argument based on an article from a softcore political porn site? I should demand a real news source before replying, but I will allow it.

Now, consider the context... this was a campaign speech... it was most likely crafted and written by McCain's staff (which included policy wonks that actually were knowledgeable about world affairs). Sarah's contribution was that she read the telepromter. If this had been a real Palin policy position (if she actually knew what she was talking about), it would be no problem finding other derivations of this theme post election.... but, she doesn't, so you can't...


PS- if you want an example of obvious bias, note the link in the upper right corner entitled "Sarah Palin tops poll of female candidates that america wants to run for president"... after you are done scratching your head saying "that can't be true" and you click the link you later learn of the provision "not named hillary"

Sarah Palin Tops Poll of Women Americans Want to Run for President

See How Obama Answers ABC Reporter

The Blaze? Really? Now you have crossed the line into hardcore political porn and your credible argument is all but gone.... so, if you see fit to lower the intellectual bar with this smut, I'll show you mine.....

Now, I am all about forgiving the misspeaks and gaffes, everyone has a few, but Sarah's are beyond gaffe.... enjoy, some of these are pretty funny (if you can get over scary idea that some of the American electorate voted to put someone this ignorant a heartbeat away from the button..... this is my problem with Palin; its scary to me that people actually think she is a "leader")....


I Should Be Laughing: Dumb Things Sarah Palin Said: A Top 10 List
The 11 Dumbest Things Sarah Palin Has Said So Far | Alternet
Craziest Sarah Palin Quotes Ever - Sarah Palin Quote Generator
https://malialitman.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-stupidest-thing-sarah-palin-has-ever-said/
https://aattp.org/3-quotes-to-not-love-about-a-sarah-palin-endorsement/

Sarah Palin's fault is not that she is misunderstood or that she was railroaded by a liberal press.... if so, her idiotisms would not be so abundant.... no, Sarah Palin's problem is that she is an idiot*.

* - not because she is stupid, but because is uneducated and intellectually lazy...
 
I have difficulty understanding how a war criminal and torture supporter could have any credibility in USA National discourse. It's a sad day when a promoter of such evils has a National voice and peoples pretend she is sane. Unbelievable.

Are you really talking about Condi Rice?:confused:
 
How is that remotely relevant?

He apparently wanted to know which Condoleeza Rice and I gave pertinent data to certify that.
 
I was trying to be gracious. But since you want to make a stink about it, that statement can be viewed in another light. Actually when you think about it, although the Obama administration put the idea of a sequester forward, they did it as a bluff, thinking there was no way Republicans would agree to cuts in military spending. However, the Republicans were the ones who actually took it and started seriously advocating it as a way to cut spending. So Obama was right, it was actually the Republicans idea, because they are the ones who really wanted to do it.

Si it was Obama's idea but a bluff? Could a bluff also be called a lie?

But it is interesting how you managed to make Obama's idea, which you admit is true, a Republicans idea. Of course it's convoluted and silly but is interesting to read.
 
How is that remotely relevant?

Does this surprise you?

Learn something here. The left will support Blacks if they stay on the left. They will support Gays if they stay on the left. They will support women if they stay on the left. But if they stray from the flock then all that liberalism disappears in a heartbeat. You should pay more attention to these lowlifes.
 
Does this surprise you?

Learn something here. The left will support Blacks if they stay on the left. They will support Gays if they stay on the left. They will support women if they stay on the left. But if they stray from the flock then all that liberalism disappears in a heartbeat. You should pay more attention to these lowlifes.

This is one of the stupidest things you've ever posted.

The "left" will support people who stay on the "left," and won't support people on the "right." It doesn't matter if they're black or female or gay.

Oh wait. I forgot DaveFagan speaks for the entirety of the leftist hivemind. My bad.
 
Breitbart? Really? You attempt a serious argument based on an article from a softcore political porn site? I should demand a real news source before replying, but I will allow it.
You will allow it because there are dozens of sources. Who are you trying to kid here??

The Blaze? Really? Now you have crossed the line into hardcore political porn and your credible argument is all but gone.... so, if you see fit to lower the intellectual bar with this smut, I'll show you mine.....

Are you being deliberately thick here? Are you actually saying the story is untrue or just whining about the source? Get whatever act you might have together and quit this juvenile game.
..
 
This is one of the stupidest things you've ever posted.

The "left" will support people who stay on the "left," and won't support people on the "right." It doesn't matter if they're black or female or gay.

Oh wait. I forgot DaveFagan speaks for the entirety of the leftist hivemind. My bad.

Fagan is a typical leftist. Watch and learn.

See Upsideguy still going after Sarah Palin? This is a typical leftist as well.

If your memory served you better you'd know all this.
 
Fagan is a typical leftist. Watch and learn.

See Upsideguy still going after Sarah Palin? This is a typical leftist as well.

If your memory served you better you'd know all this.

There's no such thing as a "typical leftist." You're doing what you always do. Find someone you politically disagree with that you don't like, and using that persons words to tar anyone of their particular lean.
 
There's no such thing as a "typical leftist." You're doing what you always do. Find someone you politically disagree with that you don't like, and using that persons words to tar anyone of their particular lean.

You may not know that there are typical leftists because you are part of the flock. But anyone else can see you milling about together, all bumping into each other, making the same sounds.
 
You may not know that there are typical leftists because you are part of the flock. But anyone else can see you milling about together, all bumping into each other, making the same sounds.

Aaaaand you're resorting to your usual bag of tricks. Not this time pal; I know better than to attempt to reason with someone who views all liberals as evil incarnate. Seacrest out.
 
Aaaaand you're resorting to your usual bag of tricks. Not this time pal; I know better than to attempt to reason with someone who views all liberals as evil incarnate. Seacrest out.

I never said all liberals are evil incarnate, but misrepresenting the truth is so typically leftist.
 
I never said all liberals are evil incarnate, but misrepresenting the truth is so typically leftist.

Not in so many words. But your bitterly nasty hyperpartisan rhetoric certainly lends itself to that belief.
 
Back
Top Bottom