How long before we hear "It's Obama's fault" coming from the GOP & neo-cons?

[WalterSobchak]

In my wise and honest opinion, I believe Romney will win this election.

But I wanna hear from all of you, including you GOP supporters & neo-cons, how far into Romney's Presidency will we begin to hear the..........."It's Obama's fault" the economy still sucks ass. Much like we have heard the "It's Bush's fault" from the ultra-libs.

We all know it's coming. I just wanna read your opinion on when you believe we may hear it first.


I'm gonna say by the end of March 2013. Once the BLS reports the unemployment numbers as still being shitty, and once people see that their gas prices are still expensive and didn't magically drop because a Republican became POTUS.

What say all of you?

[patrickt]

That's hilarious. I don't know if we'll ever have another president who can accept responsibility for anything. His most recent was, it's really Hillary Clinton's fault but I'll take responsibility. I hate to break the news to the nitwit but that isn't taking responsibility.

So, in answer, it will never happen.

[texmaster]

In my wise and honest opinion,

Stop. I'm laughing too hard.

[Kabuki Joe]

In my wise and honest opinion, I believe Romney will win this election.

But I wanna hear from all of you, including you GOP supporters & neo-cons, how far into Romney's Presidency will we begin to hear the..........."It's Obama's fault" the economy still sucks ass. Much like we have heard the "It's Bush's fault" from the ultra-libs.

We all know it's coming. I just wanna read your opinion on when you believe we may hear it first.


I'm gonna say by the end of March 2013. Once the BLS reports the unemployment numbers as still being shitty, and once people see that their gas prices are still expensive and didn't magically drop because a Republican became POTUS.

What say all of you?


...I thought you said you were a libertarian and not a liberal?...you sure like beating on Repblicans and I don't remember you beating on demorats...but go ahead and do it now to make yourself look better...


Kabuki Joe

[Calypso Jones]

I don't think you'll hear it from the new president. God willing he is elected.

But i think a lot of us will be saying it to each other and thinking it A LOT to ourselves and wondering WHAT IN THE HELL happened to us that we elected such an incompetent ENemy. Most importantly we will remember the role the media played in his election and in the attempt to re-elect him. I will never forget that treachery.

[WalterSobchak]

Stop. I'm laughing too hard.


At least I can distinguish the difference between opinion & fact. You on the other hand...................well.

[Deadwood]

In my wise and honest opinion, I believe Romney will win this election.

But I wanna hear from all of you, including you GOP supporters & neo-cons, how far into Romney's Presidency will we begin to hear the..........."It's Obama's fault" the economy still sucks ass. Much like we have heard the "It's Bush's fault" from the ultra-libs.

We all know it's coming. I just wanna read your opinion on when you believe we may hear it first.


I'm gonna say by the end of March 2013. Once the BLS reports the unemployment numbers as still being shitty, and once people see that their gas prices are still expensive and didn't magically drop because a Republican became POTUS.

What say all of you?

Walter, Walter, Walter......they have been saying it's all Obama's fault since he was sworn into office......


You have to admit, though, that Obama goes waaaay over the top in blaming others for his failures...even his "admissions" are conditional.

There is no "the buck stops here" with this guy.

The question he will not answer is 'you had a complete majority for the first two years, but didn't get the job done; why"

He has been all about "it's Bush's fault" and then "they won't let me" even though Reagan had a larger opposition but did get the job done, without executive privilege.....

And, I don't think Romney will win. The electoral college isn't going to fall his way.

[WalterSobchak]

...I thought you said you were a libertarian and not a liberal?...you sure like beating on Repblicans and I don't remember you beating on demorats...but go ahead and do it now to make yourself look better...


Kabuki Joe


How is asking that question beating on Republicans?

I swear, it's always a my side vs your side with you neo-cons.

[Mainecoons]

Until/unless libertarians get control of the government cancer, it is just going to continue to fester. But I doubt Romney will talk about Obama much. Just not his style. But I also doubt he'll get the meat axe out and start lopping off useless government agencies and activities and their overpaid, under competent work forces. And he most certainly won't start with the Department of Offense immediately after getting rid of the REALLY useless and harmful Department of MalEducation.

No, the red ink will flow until the collapse comes, possibly preceded by Weimar style runaway inflation.

[WalterSobchak]

Walter, Walter, Walter......they have been saying it's all Obama's fault since he was sworn into office......


You have to admit, though, that Obama goes waaaay over the top in blaming others for his failures...even his "admissions" are conditional.

There is no "the buck stops here" with this guy.

The question he will not answer is 'you had a complete majority for the first two years, but didn't get the job done; why"

He has been all about "it's Bush's fault" and then "they won't let me" even though Reagan had a larger opposition but did get the job done, without executive privilege.....

And, I don't think Romney will win. The electoral college isn't going to fall his way.


Oh, I agree F&L. Obama has been an awful leader. But I guarantee that Romney will be quick to blame Obama once given the chance.

And I disagree. Romney is gonna win this election.

[Deadwood]

How is asking that question beating on Republicans?

I swear, it's always a my side vs your side with you neo-cons.


I have to agree with you on that point.

It was a rather benign OP.

And there is too much automatic kick back on this forum, from both sides.

[Mainecoons]

Regards your second sentence. . .again, it isn't Romney's style and it is pretty premature to "guarantee" he is going to start doing that.

We already know that Obama has/does. That's all we know at this point.

[Deadwood]

Oh, I agree F&L. Obama has been an awful leader. But I guarantee that Romney will be quick to blame Obama once given the chance.

And I disagree. Romney is gonna win this election.


You're getting far too gracious lately.....something in the water?

Just don't get boring, OK?

[WalterSobchak]

Regards your second sentence. . .again, it isn't Romney's style and it is pretty premature to "guarantee" he is going to start doing that.

We already know that Obama has/does. That's all we know at this point.


Ok, I will give you that.

But in my OP, I asked about the GOP & neo-cons in general. That would include those that support them. Such as some folks in this forum. How long before we all hear it from them?

[garyo]

See, there you go again.

[Kabuki Joe]

How is asking that question beating on Republicans?

I swear, it's always a my side vs your side with you neo-cons.


...did you read my post?...all I see from you is ripping on republicans and not once have you said anything about Obama unless pushed into it to defend your "supposed" neutrality...


Kabuki Joe

[WalterSobchak]

You're getting far too gracious lately.....something in the water?

Just don't get boring, OK?


LOLOL! Nothing in the water out here F&L. I am just actually looking forward for this election season to be over already. As someone who has voted for who I believed was the lesser of two evils for the past 3 Presidential elections, it is depressing to see who we have to vote for this time around.

Obama sucks so much ass and has been an incredible disappointment. And Romney is just as bad as him, IMO.

But, maybe this time, Romney might actually be a little conservative. Especially fiscally. One can hope. But I'm still not gonna vote for any of those turds.

[Calypso Jones]

How is asking that question beating on Republicans?

I swear, it's always a my side vs your side with you neo-cons.

irony

[Deadwood]

...did you read my post?...all I see from you is ripping on republicans and not once have you said anything about Obama unless pushed into it to defend your "supposed" neutrality...


Kabuki Joe


My apologies, Joe. But Walter has been pretty consistent in his disappointment in Obama while remaining true to his liberal roots. I condemn no one for their beliefs but in how they exercise them.

I agree he has, at times, laid a pretty fierce beating on conservatives and others, including me.

But in this thread he has not, baited a bit perhaps, but he has been fair and the question, IMO, is valid. Premature perhaps, but fair.

[texmaster]

At least I can distinguish the difference between opinion & fact. You on the other hand...................well.

LOL I'm not the one with the issue or should I say issues little buddy ;)

[texmaster]

...I thought you said you were a libertarian and not a liberal?...you sure like beating on Repblicans and I don't remember you beating on demorats...but go ahead and do it now to make yourself look better...


Kabuki Joe

He has no idea what he is. The technical term is

http://netanimations.net/coo_coo_clock_animation.gif

[WalterSobchak]

...did you read my post?...all I see from you is ripping on republicans and not once have you said anything about Obama unless pushed into it to defend your "supposed" neutrality...


Kabuki Joe


Believe what you want Kabuki. I don't have to participate in hate everything Obama circle jerks like yourself and others to show disdain for the man as POTUS.

I will never be the cheerleader you want me to be. Tough shit.

[WalterSobchak]

My apologies, Joe. But Walter has been pretty consistent in his disappointment in Obama while remaining true to his liberal roots. I condemn no one for their beliefs but in how they exercise them.

I agree he has, at times, laid a pretty fierce beating on conservatives and others, including me.

But in this thread he has not, baited a bit perhaps, but he has been fair and the question, IMO, is valid. Premature perhaps, but fair.


I only like arguing with neo-cons. Well, those who I believe are neo-cons.

Arguing with hyper-libs is like arguing with a 3 year old. IMO


But I will admit, there are times where I enjoy the occasional troll. I mean honestly, who doesn't??!! :laugh:

[texmaster]

I only like arguing with neo-cons. Well, those who I believe are neo-cons.

Arguing with hyper-libs is like arguing with a 3 year old. IMO


But I will admit, there are times where I enjoy the occasional troll. I mean honestly, who doesn't??!! :laugh:

Do you even know what a neo con is dumbass?

[WalterSobchak]

Do you even know what a neo con is dumbass?


And I see you like to troll too!

Reps coming your way for a decent troll attempt.

[WalterSobchak]

Do you even know what a neo con is dumbass?


Oh, and to answer your question, a neo-con is you. IMO

[texmaster]

And I see you like to troll too!



Thats what I thought. Typical coward.

Next time don't throw out labels if you lack the courage to defend them.

[Deadwood]

LOLOL! Nothing in the water out here F&L. I am just actually looking forward for this election season to be over already. As someone who has voted for who I believed was the lesser of two evils for the past 3 Presidential elections, it is depressing to see who we have to vote for this time around.

Obama sucks so much ass and has been an incredible disappointment. And Romney is just as bad as him, IMO.

But, maybe this time, Romney might actually be a little conservative. Especially fiscally. One can hope. But I'm still not gonna vote for any of those turds.

I cannot recall an election in either country, state or province nor the city where it wasn't a case of holding my nose and choosing the least of evils. It is particularly difficult in Canada where we do not get to vote directly for the prime minister but, rather, the member of his party running in my constituency.

This time the choice is easier than it was four years ago. And, in this case I would say 'better the devil you don't know, than the one you do."

[GrassrootsConservative]

And I see you like to troll too!

Reps coming your way for a decent troll attempt.

767

[WalterSobchak]

Thats what I thought. Typical coward.

Next time don't throw out labels if you lack the courage to defend them.


This troll attempt kinda sucked ass Tex. You need to work on your troll game a little.

You troll better when you talk about homosexuals. So just go with that.

[WalterSobchak]

767


You are the Cigar of the neo-cons.

Just sayin.

[GrassrootsConservative]

You are the Cigar of the neo-cons.

Just sayin.

You are the Village Idiot of the Village.

'' ''

[Deadwood]

I only like arguing with neo-cons. Well, those who I believe are neo-cons.

Arguing with hyper-libs is like arguing with a 3 year old. IMO


But I will admit, there are times where I enjoy the occasional troll. I mean honestly, who doesn't??!! :laugh:



But you argue with me, vehemently at times. I would suggest it would be very difficult if not impossible to define me as a 'neo con' as I support a social safety net that is fair and efficient, gay marriage and universal health care [not Obamacare] and believe that abortion is a matter between her lover, her doctor and her conscience.

So, does that men you don't "enjoy" arguing with me but do it anyway?

[Kabuki Joe]

My apologies, Joe. But Walter has been pretty consistent in his disappointment in Obama while remaining true to his liberal roots. I condemn no one for their beliefs but in how they exercise them.

I agree he has, at times, laid a pretty fierce beating on conservatives and others, including me.

But in this thread he has not, baited a bit perhaps, but he has been fair and the question, IMO, is valid. Premature perhaps, but fair.

...like I said he's ripped on Bush and Romney a whole bunch and only went after Obama when pushed into it to look "neutral"...this is dishonest imo...if you claim to be neutral you need to prove it and he has not looked neutral to me what-so-ever...do I like Romney?...better then Obama is about it...


Kabuki Joe

[WalterSobchak]

I cannot recall an election in either country, state or province nor the city where it wasn't a case of holding my nose and choosing the least of evils. It is particularly difficult in Canada where we do not get to vote directly for the prime minister but, rather, the member of his party running in my constituency.

This time the choice is easier than it was four years ago. And, in this case I would say 'better the devil you don't know, than the one you do."


I hear ya F&L. And I'm not gonna lie, there were moments during both debates where I actually was a little persuaded by Mitt's responses. He definately seemed more Presidential in the debates. But I just can't bring myself to vote for the dude.


Wait, what am I saying??!! Of course I would vote for The Dude! Lebowski/Sobchak 2012!

[Deadwood]

I hear ya F&L. And I'm not gonna lie, there were moments during both debates where I actually was a little persuaded by Mitt's responses. He definately seemed more Presidential in the debates. But I just can't bring myself to vote for the dude.


Wait, what am I saying??!! Of course I would vote for The Dude! Lebowski/Sobchak 2012!


I am "The Dude" Walter.....

[WalterSobchak]

But you argue with me, vehemently at times. I would suggest it would be very difficult if not impossible to define me as a 'neo con' as I support a social safety net that is fair and efficient, gay marriage and universal health care [not Obamacare] and believe that abortion is a matter between her lover, her doctor and her conscience.

So, does that men you don't "enjoy" arguing with me but do it anyway?


But if you think about it F&L, I haven't argued with you in a long while. You even made a comment in this thread saying I have been gracious these days. Everyone forms quick opinions of folks all the time. My quick opinion of you weeks ago was that you were a neo-con. I believe I have a better understanding of who you actually are politically. I respect you because you do not play the my side vs your side BS that goes on here and at other forums I frequent.

I used to have some nasty debates with others here on different forums. Ask Trinn! Me and her are like peas in a pod now! Huh Trinn?! :kiss:

[WalterSobchak]

...like I said he's ripped on Bush and Romney a whole bunch and only went after Obama when pushed into it to look "neutral"...this is dishonest imo...if you claim to be neutral you need to prove it and he has not looked neutral to me what-so-ever...do I like Romney?...better then Obama is about it...


Kabuki Joe


Because Bush sucked. Surely you can agree with that. Even though he sucked ass as a POTUS, I would LOVE to drink a few beers with him. That sounds like a blast actually.

By the way, I don't have to participate in Obama is a Muslim Communist with a wife you enjoy calling Moochelle to show you I think Obama sucks balls as the POTUS.

Why do you believe I have to?

[Deadwood]

...like I said he's ripped on Bush and Romney a whole bunch and only went after Obama when pushed into it to look "neutral"...this is dishonest imo...if you claim to be neutral you need to prove it and he has not looked neutral to me what-so-ever...do I like Romney?...better then Obama is about it...


Kabuki Joe

So have I. I tore into Romney during the debates and have never said a kind word about Obama; can't do it.

I make the distinction with this member between his left wing position and his 'support' for Obama. Correct me if you can, but he hasn't, like most left wingers, blindly supported a man because he happened to have won, in this case through deceit, the nomination.

I have to say I admire anyone who can change their mind on an issue after discussion, debate and clear thinking. My biggest issue with the left in the US, which is Liberal in Canada and the left in Canada, which is socialist in anyone's country, is the blind, thoughtless, stubborn adoption of proven failure ideas. It is because of that idiocy that this forum is more and more right wing, becoming an echo chamber as thinking liberals abandon ship so as not to be associated with the ignorance so often displayed through drive by trolling and anti-right cheap shots.

Walter and I have clashed, rather vehemently at times, but I am more prepared to cut him some slack as he posts reasonably intelligent stuff and sticks around to defend his position; not one I agree with, but one to which he is entitled.

Having said that, anyone who would chose an obese, bullying, dysfunctional, hypocritical slob as an avatar and handle has to have either some serious cajones or deep rooted issues....

[Deadwood]

Because Bush sucked. Surely you can agree with that. Even though he sucked ass as a POTUS, I would LOVE to drink a few beers with him. That sounds like a blast actually.

By the way, I don't have to participate in Obama is a Muslim Communist with a wife you enjoy calling Moochelle to show you I think Obama sucks balls as the POTUS.

Why do you believe I have to?

I would, if I could have a beer, love to slug a few back Dubya. Even m ore so with Mrs. Dubya!


And you have to make a distinction between first term Bush where he was a great president, and second term Bush where he was a failure.

[WalterSobchak]

So have I. I tore into Romney during the debates and have never said a kind word about Obama; can't do it.

I make the distinction with this member between his left wing position and his 'support' for Obama. Correct me if you can, but he hasn't, like most left wingers, blindly supported a man because he happened to have won, in this case through deceit, the nomination.

I have to say I admire anyone who can change their mind on an issue after discussion, debate and clear thinking. My biggest issue with the left in the US, which is Liberal in Canada and the left in Canada, which is socialist in anyone's country, is the blind, thoughtless, stubborn adoption of proven failure ideas. It is because of that idiocy that this forum is more and more right wing, becoming an echo chamber as thinking liberals abandon ship so as not to be associated with the ignorance so often displayed through drive by trolling and anti-right cheap shots.

Walter and I have clashed, rather vehemently at times, but I am more prepared to cut him some slack as he posts reasonably intelligent stuff and sticks around to defend his position; not one I agree with, but one to which he is entitled.

Having said that, anyone who would chose an obese, bullying, dysfunctional, hypocritical slob as an avatar and handle has to have either some serious cajones or deep rooted issues....


LOLOL. My wife says I have issues all the time! HAHAHAHA

But I gotta tell ya, she LOVES Walter Sobchak! LMAO

[WalterSobchak]

I would, if I could have a beer, love to slug a few back Dubya. Even m ore so with Mrs. Dubya!


And you have to make a distinction between first term Bush where he was a great president, and second term Bush where he was a failure.


Yes, my fault. Bush Jr was god awful. And to think, we won............twice! And to think, I actually voted for him the first time! YIKES!

[Deadwood]

But if you think about it F&L, I haven't argued with you in a long while. You even made a comment in this thread saying I have been gracious these days. Everyone forms quick opinions of folks all the time. My quick opinion of you weeks ago was that you were a neo-con. I believe I have a better understanding of who you actually are politically. I respect you because you do not play the my side vs your side BS that goes on here and at other forums I frequent.

I used to have some nasty debates with others here on different forums. Ask Trinn! Me and her are like peas in a pod now! Huh Trinn?! :kiss:

Does Mr. Trinn know about that?

[Chris]

All I can say is way it's going now in popular and electoral polls it won't actually be all that long before we hear it was all Romney's fault!

[WalterSobchak]

Does Mr. Trinn know about that?


What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. LOL

[WalterSobchak]

Ok, gotta run. Be back later.

[Deadwood]

Ok, gotta run. Be back later.

Chicken!

[gamewell45]

In my wise and honest opinion, I believe Romney will win this election.

But I wanna hear from all of you, including you GOP supporters & neo-cons, how far into Romney's Presidency will we begin to hear the..........."It's Obama's fault" the economy still sucks ass. Much like we have heard the "It's Bush's fault" from the ultra-libs.

We all know it's coming. I just wanna read your opinion on when you believe we may hear it first.


I'm gonna say by the end of March 2013. Once the BLS reports the unemployment numbers as still being shitty, and once people see that their gas prices are still expensive and didn't magically drop because a Republican became POTUS.

What say all of you?

I agree. Each succeeding President blames the prior administration for all the countries ills. While I don't think that Romney will win this time around, because of the animosity exhibited by members of all three parties (Libertarians thrown into the mix) regardless of who wins, It'll give the media and bloggers plenty of ammunition for the next four years.

[Calypso Jones]

I don't recall GWB EVEr blaming Clinton for anything. If you have a link though i would like to see it.

[gamewell45]

I don't recall GWB EVEr blaming Clinton for anything. If you have a link though i would like to see it.

Fair enough; I will search for a link on the matter.

[Peter1469]

Do you even know what a neo con is dumbass?

Tex, if you want an honest response I suggest you drop the dumbass.

[texmaster]

This troll attempt kinda sucked ass Tex. You need to work on your troll game a little.

You troll better when you talk about homosexuals. So just go with that.

Its not a troll. Its a serious question to a label you throw out all the time.

Can you answer it or not?

[texmaster]

Tex, if you want an honest response I suggest you drop the dumbass.

For you I did.

Watch what happens.

[texmaster]

Fair enough; I will search for a link on the matter.

I think every president has to some extent but never this long or continuous.

[WalterSobchak]

I don't recall GWB EVEr blaming Clinton for anything. If you have a link though i would like to see it.


Of course he has. They all do.

Here is a good one from Bush Jr.



"In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We're turning that around." GW Bush


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-bush-economy_x.htm

[WalterSobchak]

I think every president has to some extent but never this long or continuous.


I would agree with that. Obama is a terrible leader. It's always someone eles's fault. I don't think he has taken responsibility or blame for anything bad from his administration.

The blame the last guy excuse gets old.

[Deadwood]

Of course he has. They all do.

Here is a good one from Bush Jr.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-bush-economy_x.htm




That's not blame, but comparison. Obama blame goes like this:

"Mr. President, the jobless rate continues to worsen despite your programs and the spending of one trillion dollars. What's the problem?"


"Well, we inherited a mess. The previous administration....."

Bush was bragging, Obama is bagging...


Big difference.

[texmaster]

Its not a troll. Its a serious question to a label you throw out all the time.

Can you answer it or not?

Answer it Walter.

[roadmaster]

As an independent I wanted healthcare like Canada and hoped Obama did too. Gay marriage no, civil unions with all the benefits yes. Blamed Bush Jr. his last year in office because you could tell he had no clue at times about the economy. Would not vote for McCain or Obama after looking into their voting and history. The economy was not half as bad as Obama has put us into. McCain was an opportunist, no substance and should have ran on the democrat ticket.

I will give Mitt a year to see if he holds true or not. It would be nice to see a President looking out for the ones that elected him instead of other countries and illegals. If Obama wins I see us downgraded again. Many companies are waiting after the election to lay-off people. We are going to be hit hard if Obama wins again. The riots are the least people need to worry about.

[texmaster]

As an independent I wanted healthcare like Canada and hoped Obama did too. Gay marriage no, civil unions with all the benefits yes. Blamed Bush Jr. his last year in office because you could tell he had no clue at times about the economy. Would not vote for McCain or Obama after looking into their voting and history. The economy was not half as bad as Obama has put us into. McCain was an opportunist, no substance and should have ran on the democrat ticket.

I will give Mitt a year to see if he holds true or not. It would be nice to see a President looking out for the ones that elected him instead of other countries and illegals. If Obama wins I see us downgraded again. Many companies are waiting after the election to lay-off people. We are going to be hit hard if Obama wins again. The riots are the least people need to worry about.

I don't hold out much hope for Romney being a bold president. But he isn't Obama and he can stop the bleeding.

Most importantly, we would control the next Supreme Court nomination and that's truly all that matters.

[Trinnity]

Walter, I'm saying it now. Obama has set the stage already, to make it near impossible to reverse the damage he's done. Obama/PelosiCare is a taxation and regulatory monster, a virtual vampire that will be hard as hell to eradicate. His hidden legacy is the increase in regulations, in general. That's the beast we'll have to battle to get past the systemic problem that will continue to inhibit recovery and REAL "progress".

[Cigar]

In my wise and honest opinion, I believe Romney will win this election.

But I wanna hear from all of you, including you GOP supporters & neo-cons, how far into Romney's Presidency will we begin to hear the..........."It's Obama's fault" the economy still sucks ass. Much like we have heard the "It's Bush's fault" from the ultra-libs.

We all know it's coming. I just wanna read your opinion on when you believe we may hear it first.


I'm gonna say by the end of March 2013. Once the BLS reports the unemployment numbers as still being shitty, and once people see that their gas prices are still expensive and didn't magically drop because a Republican became POTUS.

What say all of you?



It started January 20th ... 2009

[Trinnity]

Here ya go...Madeleine Albright: We're Going To Blame Bush "Forever"
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/21/madeleine_albright_were_going_to_blame_bush_foreve r.html)(see the viddy)

Obama's not gonna be blamed by Romney. But many others will blame Obama. He's got a lot to be blamed for. Count on it.

[patrickt]

The real question, Walter, is when will President Obama quit saying everything was President Bush's fault. I'm sure he can find a new scapegoat somewhere. All that's a given is that he will never accept responsibility for anything. Liberals are still blaming President Nixon for Vietnam.

[texmaster]

Tex, if you want an honest response I suggest you drop the dumbass.

Told you it wouldn't matter. He wont answer it.

[Trinnity]

But if you think about it F&L, I haven't argued with you in a long while. You even made a comment in this thread saying I have been gracious these days. Everyone forms quick opinions of folks all the time. My quick opinion of you weeks ago was that you were a neo-con. I believe I have a better understanding of who you actually are politically. I respect you because you do not play the my side vs your side BS that goes on here and at other forums I frequent.

I used to have some nasty debates with others here on different forums. Ask Trinn! Me and her are like peas in a pod now! Huh Trinn?! :kiss:Oh yeah, I've seen you get pretty nasty all right. But overall you're a pretty straight shooter and I came to respect that long ago.

Does that mean we're pea-shooters? LOL

[WalterSobchak]

Told you it wouldn't matter. He wont answer it.


Tex, if you would ask nicely, instead of acting like an asshat...........you will find that I am quite easy to get along with.


Now, if you support increased government involvement in traditional morality, family values or what not, support neo-con values. Now, since you support your government banning homosexual marraige, you fall in that line.

Now to be fair, I do not know your stance on Foreign Policy. So I am not sure if you are a full-fledged neo-con.


So please, I ask..........What is your stance on Foreign Policy?

[WalterSobchak]

Oh yeah, I've seen you get pretty nasty all right. But overall you're a pretty straight shooter and I came to respect that long ago.

Does that mean we're pea-shooters? LOL


We certainly are Trinn! LOL

[Deadwood]

The real question, Walter, is when will President Obama quit saying everything was President Bush's fault. I'm sure he can find a new scapegoat somewhere. All that's a given is that he will never accept responsibility for anything. Liberals are still blaming President Nixon for Vietnam.



Ah...Obama quit blaming Bush after the 2010 election results and started blaming "the enemy" as in the small majority in the House.

It's his robots that blame Bush and call everyone teabaggers etc., etc., etc., to the point of nausea...

[Deadwood]

Tex, if you would ask nicely, instead of acting like an asshat...........you will find that I am quite easy to get along with.


Now, if you support increased government involvement in traditional morality, family values or what not, support neo-con values. Now, since you support your government banning homosexual marraige, you fall in that line.

Now to be fair, I do not know your stance on Foreign Policy. So I am not sure if you are a full-fledged neo-con.


So please, I ask..........What is your stance on Foreign Policy?

So, put it to bed Walter. Answer the man's question. He did remove the slanderous insult, after being told to yes, but he did it.

Not fair to demand an answer to your question when you haven't answered his...

[WalterSobchak]

So, put it to bed Walter. Answer the man's question. He did remove the slanderous insult, after being told to yes, but he did it.

Not fair to demand an answer to your question when you haven't answered his...


But I did answer his question F&L. Just not directly like I'm at school and he is my teacher. Not to say that I don't appreciate learning something new, because I sure do.

But I believe Tex wants INCREASED government in traditional morality / family values. His threads on banning homosexual marraige tends to make me think this.


Now, if he also wants INCREASED government in pro-business policies, and if he wants a stronger involvement in Foreign Policy............he would be a full-fledged neo-con.

[WalterSobchak]

Crap! It's 4pm! Gotta go pick up the Mrs. Be back later this evening.

[Deadwood]

But I did answer his question F&L. Just not directly like I'm at school and he is my teacher. Not to say that I don't appreciate learning something new, because I sure do.

But I believe Tex wants INCREASED government in traditional morality / family values. His threads on banning homosexual marraige tends to make me think this.


Now, if he also wants INCREASED government in pro-business policies, and if he wants a stronger involvement in Foreign Policy............he would be a full-fledged neo-con.

OK, been over the whole thread and the only "answer" you gave was "A neo con is you"....

But now you have, and its an acceptable definition..

Tex? You're up buddy...

[texmaster]

Tex, if you would ask nicely, instead of acting like an asshat...........you will find that I am quite easy to get along with.

Spare us your lies Walter. Your responses to me have never been cordial. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Here is just an example of the first responses to me in multiple threads by you:


Obama would also like to thank the GOP for putting up a complete fuckhead to run against him.



So you hold people accountable for their cheap shots & attacking others by giving a cheap shot and attacking them?

LMAO, some strategy!


Tex is a funny dude. Everything is a competition with him. where there must be a winner. LOL

Did you really think your pathetic attempt to paint yourself in a different picture than the truth would actually work? You seek me out in threads. I don't seek you out and you set the tone of the discussions we have. Man up next time and take some personal responsibility for your own actions.


Now, if you support increased government involvement in traditional morality, family values or what not, support neo-con values. Now, since you support your government banning homosexual marraige, you fall in that line.

And that is not what a neo con is. No surprise you screwed that up too.

A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative) but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal (http://conservapedia.com/Liberal). A neocon is a type of RINO (http://conservapedia.com/RINO), and like RINOs does not accept most of the important principles in the Republican Party platform.

All you have done is use the wrong definition in a pathetic attempt to paint your political enemies in a negative light.

http://conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism


Now to be fair, I do not know your stance on Foreign Policy. So I am not sure if you are a full-fledged neo-con.

So please, I ask..........What is your stance on Foreign Policy?

In what respect? You couldn't ask a more general question if you tried.

[texmaster]

But I did answer his question F&L. Just not directly like I'm at school and he is my teacher. Not to say that I don't appreciate learning something new, because I sure do.

But I believe Tex wants INCREASED government in traditional morality / family values. His threads on banning homosexual marraige tends to make me think this.

More lies by Walter. I have said repeatedly the way for homosexual marriage is an amendment to the Constitution. Never did I say I would have a problem if that was the path to legalizing homosexual marriage. What I have said I'm against is the arguments homosexuals and their supporters make and tear those arguments apart at every opportunity when they try to use the courts or failed logic to get gay marriage past..

Just one more lie on top of a mountain of lies by you.


Now, if he also wants INCREASED government in pro-business policies, and if he wants a stronger involvement in Foreign Policy............he would be a full-fledged neo-con.

I've already proven you don't have a clue what an actual neo con is. Back to school with you Walter. At least know the definition of the word before you throw it around like a flailing 4 year old.

[Morningstar]

Romney won't have any economic problems.

He will piss off environmentalists. That's not an issue for me.

He will, maybe, be a warmonger. That is a problem for me.

[Peter1469]

He is a neocon.

[Morningstar]

He is a neocon.

He may be.

Haven't been impressed with Romney or Ryan on foreign policy...

[Peter1469]

He may be.

Haven't been impressed with Romney or Ryan on foreign policy...

Their foreign policy advisers are pulled from the Bush team.

[texmaster]

He is a neocon.

Based on what?

[Mainecoons]

He may be.

Haven't been impressed with Romney or Ryan on foreign policy...

Agree. Long past the time when someone running for this office should get up, face the nation and say, "look folks, we can't afford to police the world."

[Chris]

More lies by Walter. I have said repeatedly the way for homosexual marriage is an amendment to the Constitution. Never did I say I would have a problem if that was the path to legalizing homosexual marriage. What I have said I'm against is the arguments homosexuals and their supporters make and tear those arguments apart at every opportunity when they try to use the courts or failed logic to get gay marriage past..

Just one more lie on top of a mountain of lies by you.



I've already proven you don't have a clue what an actual neo con is. Back to school with you Walter. At least know the definition of the word before you throw it around like a flailing 4 year old.

Not really sure what you expect other than tit for tat when your habit, when you disagree with someone, is to call them liar and other names. And this game of I won't answer your question because you won't answer mine is old.

I suggest you both get back to the topic at hand.

[Chris]

He is a neocon.

Define neocon, dagnabbit! :rofl:

[Peter1469]

Based on what?

His own words and choice of foreign policy advisers.

[texmaster]

Not really sure what you expect other than tit for tat when your habit, when you disagree with someone, is to call them liar and other names. And this game of I won't answer your question because you won't answer mine is old.

I suggest you both get back to the topic at hand.

LOL What a shocker. I go after Walter and in comes his greatest defender.

I call someone a liar when they lie. You couldn't defend your position and you fabricated mine and every time I said you lied I explained why. If you can't debate the point that isn't anyone's fault but your own. Crying about it later only makes you look pathetic.

[texmaster]

His own words and choice of foreign policy advisers.

No I'm asking you based on what is he a neocon? Throwing out labels mean nothing if you can't support them. What specific examples make Romney a neoncon?

[Mainecoons]

His wanting to spend even more money on the Department of Offense puts him in the neocon category in my opinion.

[texmaster]

Define neocon, dagnabbit! :rofl:

Thats right. God forbid someone actually understands a word before they use it. :rollseyes:

[texmaster]

His wanting to spend even more money on the Department of Offense puts him in the neocon category in my opinion.

But thats the point. A neo con isn't someone who spends money on defense.

A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative) but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal (http://conservapedia.com/Liberal). A neocon is a type of RINO (http://conservapedia.com/RINO), and like RINOs does not accept most of the important principles in the Republican Party platform.

For example, there are many things Romney has done that I would consider liberal but that doesn't make him a liberal overall.

[Morningstar]

It remains to be seen whether Romney will tend toward military interventionism. He's painting himself in that way, but I'm not sure if he really believes in it.

[Morningstar]

Republicans are always fighting over that neocon term, by the way. They always want a definition and this and that.

I think we all know what he meant.

[Chris]

LOL What a shocker. I go after Walter and in comes his greatest defender.

I call someone a liar when they lie. You couldn't defend your position and you fabricated mine and every time I said you lied I explained why. If you can't debate the point that isn't anyone's fault but your own. Crying about it later only makes you look pathetic.

You know, TM, you remind me very much of truthmatters. She argues the same way. She calls those she disagrees with liars and other names.


As I suggested earlier, get back to the topic. Do I need to say that in bold read?

[Peter1469]

No I'm asking you based on what is he a neocon? Throwing out labels mean nothing if you can't support them. What specific examples make Romney a neoncon?


Have you listened to anything he has said about foreign policy? Do we need to go over what neocon means? Romney's own foreign policy position confirms that he is a neocon. His chief foreign advisers confirm he is a neocon.

[Peter1469]

Republicans are always fighting over that neocon term, by the way. They always want a definition and this and that.

I think we all know what he meant.

Likely Tex is the only republican posting on this thread....

[Morningstar]

Likely Tex is the only republican posting on this thread....

I have stopped using the term neocon, for the most part, because every time I do, I end up spending too much time defining it.

Which is their whole point.

[Morningstar]

Likely Tex is the only republican posting on this thread....

What are you, a bunch of libertarians?!?

[Peter1469]

I have stopped using the term neocon, for the most part, because every time I do, I end up spending too much time defining it.

Which is their whole point.

Perfect.

[Peter1469]

What are you, a bunch of libertarians?!?

Most of those you think are republicans left the GOP because they were spending like drunken liberals. Independents, libertarians of different stripes. Not republicans.

[Captain Obvious]

Most of those you think are republicans left the GOP because they were spending like drunken liberals. Independents, libertarians of different stripes. Not republicans.

I voted across Libertarian party line this year, except for the uncontested or vs. Democrat vote where GOP was the only option.

[texmaster]

You know, TM, you remind me very much of truthmatters. She argues the same way. She calls those she disagrees with liars and other names.


As I suggested earlier, get back to the topic. Do I need to say that in bold read?

LOL Hypocrisy defined. Chris I didn't seek you out in this thread. You interjected yourself and didn't address the OP at all instead just went after me. Did you really think no one would notice?

Its truly pathetic watching you backtrack when someone gives it right back to you.

[Morningstar]

Most of those you think are republicans left the GOP because they were spending like drunken liberals. Independents, libertarians of different stripes. Not republicans.

Hell, I joined the GOP last year! I had been an independent since I was old enough to vote. And will be returning to that status...

[texmaster]

Have you listened to anything he has said about foreign policy? Do we need to go over what neocon means? Romney's own foreign policy position confirms that he is a neocon. His chief foreign advisers confirm he is a neocon.

I've provided the definition of neocon and it isn't limited to foreign policy. You obviously didn't read the fact I think many things Romney has done like his health care are very liberal but that also does not mean he is a liberal overall. So why are you trying to claim that one area of his record means he is a neocon overall?

[Morningstar]

I voted across Libertarian party line this year, except for the uncontested or vs. Democrat vote where GOP was the only option.

I almost always vote third party or anti-incumbent. Maybe I'm simply contrarian by nature, I don't know...

[Peter1469]

I've provided the definition of neocon and it isn't limited to foreign policy. You obviously didn't read the fact I think many things Romney has done like his health care are very liberal but that also does not mean he is a liberal overall. So why are you trying to claim that one area of his record means he is a neocon overall?

What makes you think that his domestic policy isn't big government? Sure he wants to end Obamacare. But his budget only decreases the growth of government spending. It doesn't cut it....

Besides the primary aspect of the neocons is their interventionist foreign policy. And you can't be a small government conservative at home, but an interventionist overseas.....

[Morningstar]

What makes you think that his domestic policy isn't big government? Sure he wants to end Obamacare. But his budget only decreases the growth of government spending. It doesn't cut it....

Besides the primary aspect of the neocons is their interventionist foreign policy. And you can't be a small government conservative at home, but an interventionist overseas.....

Well said.

+1

[texmaster]

What makes you think that his domestic policy isn't big government? Sure he wants to end Obamacare. But his budget only decreases the growth of government spending. It doesn't cut it....

Thats not what he has said.

Mitt Romney's spending plan includes a pledge to "align federal employee compensation with the private sector," and it cites studies showing that "federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected."

Did you forget about PBS as well? The Big Bird fiasco?

So yes he has promised to cut government.




Besides the primary aspect of the neocons is their interventionist foreign policy.

What defintion of neocon are you quoting?



And you can't be a small government conservative at home, but an interventionist overseas.....

Was Afghanistan interventionist? World War II? How are you defining interventionist?

[Morningstar]

What defintion of neocon are you quoting?




Was Afghanistan interventionist? World War II? How are you defining interventionist?

Here we go again...

[Peter1469]

Thats not what he has said.

Mitt Romney's spending plan includes a pledge to "align federal employee compensation with the private sector," and it cites studies showing that "federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected."

Did you forget about PBS as well? The Big Bird fiasco?

So yes he has promised to cut government.





What defintion of neocon are you quoting?




Was Afghanistan interventionist? World War II? How are you defining interventionist?

Romney's budget does not cut government spending. It cuts projected growth. The growth of government spending continues under Romney. But I would be happy to see tax payer funding to PBS go away. A good start. Keep cutting.

[Peter1469]

Thats not what he has said.

Mitt Romney's spending plan includes a pledge to "align federal employee compensation with the private sector," and it cites studies showing that "federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected."

Did you forget about PBS as well? The Big Bird fiasco?

So yes he has promised to cut government.





What defintion of neocon are you quoting?




Was Afghanistan interventionist? World War II? How are you defining interventionist?

The occupation and nation building of Afghanistan was interventionist. Sure we had every right to go in and do what we originally said we were going to do: destroy al Qaeda's capacity to operate out of Afghanistan and punish the Taliban for harboring them. We accomplished that very early on. We should have moved out combat troops out and left SoF and intel types to clean up the remaining trash. Occupation and nation building was mission creep and an impossible task.

As far as WWII goes, a better example is WWI. The US had zero national security interest in that war, and had that war not ended the way it did, WWII would never have happened.

[Morningstar]

Romney's budget does not cut government spending. It cuts projected growth. The growth of government spending continues under Romney. But I would be happy to see tax payer funding to PBS go away. A good start. Keep cutting.

I actually like PBS. And NPR, too. And they only cost pennies.

They aren't even on my radar.

But, to the point, you are absolutely correct, and most republicans don't understand that. A decrease in the projected increase is what? An INCREASE!!!

Ryan's budget plan doesn't balance for another 28 years.

28 years?!?

[Morningstar]

The occupation and nation building of Afghanistan was interventionist. Sure we had every right to go in and do what we originally said we were going to do: destroy al Qaeda's capacity to operate out of Afghanistan and punish the Taliban for harboring them. We accomplished that very early on. We should have moved out combat troops out and left SoF and intel types to clean up the remaining trash. Occupation and nation building was mission creep and an impossible task.

As far as WWII goes, a better example is WWI. The US had zero national security interest in that war, and had that war not ended the way it did, WWII would never have happened.

Beautiful.

[Captain Obvious]

NPR's political coverage is the closest thing to objectivity that I've seen in MSM for a long time.

[texmaster]

Romney's budget does not cut government spending. It cuts projected growth. The growth of government spending continues under Romney. But I would be happy to see tax payer funding to PBS go away. A good start. Keep cutting.

Cutting government salaries isn't projected growth its real cuts.

And more:

Romney: Promises to cut $500 billion per year from the federal budget by 2016 to bring spending below 20 percent of the U.S. economy and to balance it by 2020, but vital specifics are lacking. At same time would increase military spending, reverse $716 billion in Medicare cuts and cut taxes. Favors constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/10/obama-and-romney-where-stand-on-issues76591/#ixzz29t2cXy8X

There are plenty of things to go after on Romney. But throwing out the neocon label haphazard isn't one of them.

You can say Romney is weak on cutting true spending and I would agree. But this neocon bullshit is what liberals throw out for talking points.

[Morningstar]

NPR's political coverage is the closest thing to objectivity that I've seen in MSM for a long time.

I couldn't agree more.

[texmaster]

The occupation and nation building of Afghanistan was interventionist.

Now there we agree.


Sure we had every right to go in and do what we originally said we were going to do: destroy al Qaeda's capacity to operate out of Afghanistan and punish the Taliban for harboring them. We accomplished that very early on. We should have moved out combat troops out and left SoF and intel types to clean up the remaining trash. Occupation and nation building was mission creep and an impossible task.

Agreed. Obliterate and move on


As far as WWII goes, a better example is WWI. The US had zero national security interest in that war, and had that war not ended the way it did, WWII would never have happened.

Debatable but ok. I would have thought you would go right for Iraq for the interventionist charge because its much easier to make.

[Morningstar]

You can say Romney is weak on cutting true spending and I would agree. But this neocon bullshit is what liberals throw out for talking points.



It's a real thing. Neoconservatism exists. There are think tanks devoted to it, who help form the policies of our federal government.

Ignore it at your own peril.

That being said, I am not convinced that Romney is a true neocon. I view him as more of a traditional moderate democrat.

[Chris]

I voted across Libertarian party line this year, except for the uncontested or vs. Democrat vote where GOP was the only option.

Voted Badnarik. Oh, wait, that was 8 years ago.

I'm libertarian, not Libertarian.

[texmaster]

It's a real thing. Neoconservatism exists. There are think tanks devoted to it, who help form the policies of our federal government.

Ignore it at your own peril.

That being said, I am not convinced that Romney is a true neocon. I view him as more of a traditional moderate democrat.


I'm not ignoring anything. This is specifically about Romney and his positions.

[Captain Obvious]

Voted Badnarik. Oh, wait, that was 8 years ago.

I'm libertarian, not Libertarian.

You have a dry sense of humor.

Not a slam, btw.

[Chris]

LOL Hypocrisy defined. Chris I didn't seek you out in this thread. You interjected yourself and didn't address the OP at all instead just went after me. Did you really think no one would notice?

Its truly pathetic watching you backtrack when someone gives it right back to you.

I was asking you and Walter to get back on topic. The two of you were distracting from the topic with your personal squabble.

[Trinnity]

I'm a libertarian who almost always votes Republican.
It will be snowing in Hell before I ever vote for a damned democrat. <spit>

[Chris]

You have a dry sense of humor.

Not a slam, btw.

Dry, indeed.

To me the Libertarian Party is a contradiction of libertarian principles. Still it is for liberty, while, getting to topic, Romney is a neocon statist, just like Bush was, just like Obama has been.

[Morningstar]

Dry, indeed.

To me the Libertarian Party is a contradiction of libertarian principles. Still it is for liberty, while, getting to topic, Romney is a neocon statist, just like Bush was, just like Obama has been.

I've heard this before, the small "l" versus big "L".

My understanding has always been that the small l's are just conservatives.

Care to elaborate?

[texmaster]

I was asking you and Walter to get back on topic. The two of you were distracting from the topic with your personal squabble.

Bullshit. And I can easily quote you to prove you are once again lying. Oh that right, that hurts your feelings. Misrepresenting the truth then.

What you said:


Not really sure what you expect other than tit for tat when your habit, when you disagree with someone, is to call them liar and other names. And this game of I won't answer your question because you won't answer mine is old.

I suggest you both get back to the topic at hand.

Didn't just ask us to get back on topic did you Chris?

So you only go after me for my perceived attitude, say nothing about Walter's attitude and tactics and think that last phrase somehow makes your comments equal? Spare us Chris.

If you really wanted to end this you would have only said the last sentence. But being you, you just had to get a couple of cheap shots on me despite the fact I never even called anyone a liar in this thread at that point.

But go ahead, keep digging that hole. Its beyond easy to expose your false statements.

[Chris]

I've heard this before, the small "l" versus big "L".

My understanding has always been that the small l's are just conservatives.

Care to elaborate?

Lower-case libertarian principles range from limited to no government (minarchy to anarchy). OK, so the very act of running for office by upper-case Libertarians seems to me to run counter to those principles. Even Ron Paul violated that principle, though I believe he would truly have gutted government if elected.

In a way the same could be said of Republicans, inasmuch as they give lip service to libertarianism. They let Ron Paul run, but when push came to shove, he was excluded. As the libertarian P. J. O'Rourke quipped "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

I don't know but think many Republicans are libertarian but believe winning, especially against liberals, trumps that. I respect that, I understand the argument, but won't go there myself.

[Morningstar]

Lower-case libertarian principles range from limited to no government (minarchy to anarchy). OK, so the very act of running for office by upper-case Libertarians seems to me to run counter to those principles. Even Ron Paul violated that principle, though I believe he would truly have gutted government if elected.

In a way the same could be said of Republicans, inasmuch as they give lip service to libertarianism. They let Ron Paul run, but when push came to shove, he was excluded. As the libertarian P. J. O'Rourke quipped "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

I don't know but think many Republicans are libertarian but believe winning, especially against liberals, trumps that. I respect that, I understand the argument, but won't go there myself.

I think that I understand, and agree with all of the above...

But I can't be certain.

And I'm not certain that you even remotely answered the question, lol...

[Chris]

I think that I understand, and agree with all of the above...

But I can't be certain.

And I'm not certain that you even remotely answered the question, lol...

The problem is the political categories people lump themselves and others into are not either/or, but continuums one leans towards, and, moreover, it's not one dimensional but at least two*:

http://i.snag.gy/yfXnW.jpg

Libertarians (lower case l) are opposed not so much to liberals or conservatism but statism--minimum government as opposed to maximum.

And to get this back to the GOP and neocons, Romney is a neocon statist, perhaps a conservative statist, while Obama is a liberal one, but a statist just the same.

What'd Romney say during his acceptance speech, something like Elect me because I'm here to help you and your family.

What'd libertarian Reagan say: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."



(*Going into other dimensions is interesting but worth another thread.)

[Peter1469]

Cutting government salaries isn't projected growth its real cuts.

And more:

Romney: Promises to cut $500 billion per year from the federal budget by 2016 to bring spending below 20 percent of the U.S. economy and to balance it by 2020, but vital specifics are lacking. At same time would increase military spending, reverse $716 billion in Medicare cuts and cut taxes. Favors constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/10/obama-and-romney-where-stand-on-issues76591/#ixzz29t2cXy8X



There are plenty of things to go after on Romney. But throwing out the neocon label haphazard isn't one of them.

You can say Romney is weak on cutting true spending and I would agree. But this neocon bullshit is what liberals throw out for talking points.



Cutting $500B per year, when the deficit is ~$1.3T is lame. We need to cut ~$1.3 and more per year if we want to control our budget.

[texmaster]

Cutting $500B per year, when the deficit is ~$1.3T is lame. We need to cut ~$1.3 and more per year if we want to control our budget.

Agreed but the point still stands. He has put cutting the government on his agenda.

[Chris]

A neocon placating the libertarian vote. As Peter said, lame, I'll add, late, late and lame.

[Captain Obvious]

Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

[Peter1469]

Agreed but the point still stands. He has put cutting the government on his agenda.

Lowering projected spending is not cutting if you still spend more than you take it.

[texmaster]

Lowering projected spending is not cutting if you still spend more than you take it.

You do realize the Republicans even if they win everything will not have a super-majority right? What you are demanding from year 1 of a presidency is unrealistic since any budget would have to go through Congress..

And of course its cutting because its cutting current spending. It may not be cutting as much as you like but it is still cutting.

[roadmaster]

You do realize the Republicans even if they win everything will not have a super-majority right? What you are demanding from year 1 of a presidency is unrealistic since any budget would have to go through Congress..

And of course its cutting because its cutting current spending. It may not be cutting as much as you like but it is still cutting.

I don't expect a miracle. I want a President to enforce our laws and support the sheriff of Phoenix instead of trying to work against them. Go towards a solution for the economy and stop this China mess.

[Chris]

Lowering projected spending is not cutting if you still spend more than you take it.

Well, exactly, the Ryan Plan wasn't to cut spending but to cut spending increases. Spending would still increase. And all the while revenues are down because of the economic crisis we're all too slowing recovering from, and may soon face a double dip.

[Chris]

I don't expect a miracle. I want a President to enforce our laws and support the sheriff of Phoenix instead of trying to work against them. Go towards a solution for the economy and stop this China mess.

Agree on Presidents enforcing the law. But governments can't fix economies, governments should leave them the hell alone. --For Peter, government should protect consumers,, investors etc people's property. :)

[Morningstar]

You do realize the Republicans even if they win everything will not have a super-majority right? What you are demanding from year 1 of a presidency is unrealistic since any budget would have to go through Congress..

And of course its cutting because its cutting current spending. It may not be cutting as much as you like but it is still cutting.

Ever heard of the veto power?

[texmaster]

Ever heard of the veto power?

Absolutely. And how often does a president use it with success? This isn't a monarchy.

[IGetItAlready]

In my wise and honest opinion, I believe Romney will win this election.

But I wanna hear from all of you, including you GOP supporters & neo-cons, how far into Romney's Presidency will we begin to hear the..........."It's Obama's fault" the economy still sucks ass. Much like we have heard the "It's Bush's fault" from the ultra-libs.

We all know it's coming. I just wanna read your opinion on when you believe we may hear it first.


I'm gonna say by the end of March 2013. Once the BLS reports the unemployment numbers as still being shitty, and once people see that their gas prices are still expensive and didn't magically drop because a Republican became POTUS.

What say all of you?

When have we EVER heard that childish bullshit in the past Walt?
Never from a conservative administration nor even a liberal administration...until the current one.

[patrickt]

I was thinking back to all the times we heard a Republican president blaming President Clinton or President Carter or President Johnson. Oh wait, that's right. We didn't hear that. Never mind.

[WalterSobchak]

When have we EVER heard that childish bullshit in the past Walt?
Never from a conservative administration nor even a liberal administration...until the current one.


When is the last time we ACTUALLY had a LEGIT conservative admin?

80's? Maybe?

[WalterSobchak]

I was thinking back to all the times we heard a Republican president blaming President Clinton or President Carter or President Johnson. Oh wait, that's right. We didn't hear that. Never mind.


They always blame the last guy and his admin. But not to the level as the current doofus in the WH.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-bush-economy_x.htm



COLMAR, Pa. (AP) — President Bush on Thursday blamed the Clinton administration for the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and warned against backing the Democratic ticket in November because of a "hidden Kerry tax plan."


"In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We're turning that around," said Bush, who cited the addition of 107,000 manufacturing jobs this year.

[Chris]

When is the last time we ACTUALLY had a LEGIT conservative admin?

80's? Maybe?

Goldwater.