Get over it Conservatives, Obama was "elected by a majority of the popular vote twice!"

[Doove]

I knew i recognized that number when Bigtex first mentioned it, but just couldn't think of where from.

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Ah, yes!

Seems like I remember that enduring skit from days gone by.

. . . Always lots of lovely ladies on that show!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Doove

I knew i recognized that number when Bigtex first mentioned it, but just couldn't think of where from.

At times it appears that back in the day our Far Right Wing Tea-Nuts posters would have been a great comedy routine on Hee Haw. I'm curious, which of our Wing-Nut posters would play the part of Junior Sample?

How about I B Crying? Nah, I B needs to play a Hee Haw character that has an IQ in the single digits!

[Fast Gunn]

* Sigh *

Somehow, I knew that the minute CM started his rant that we would hear him yammer the words he loves so much, "Simpson-Boles Deficit Reduction Plan".

. . . What in the hell is so fascinating about this damned plan anyway?

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I assume you are speaking as a poster in the thread and not as a Mod.

Absolutely correct. If there is any mod stuff that needs to happen, I will always handle that privately with whomever needs it.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

* Sigh *

Somehow, I knew that the minute CM started his rant that we would hear him yammer the words he loves so much, "Simpson-Boles Deficit Reduction Plan".

. . . What in the hell is so fascinating about this damned plan anyway?

Excuse me, but aren't you the guy who continually prattles on about how Obama is "digging us out of the deep hole" left by GWB, when it's obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking that he's digging a much deeper hole? Have you noticed our current deficit spending run rate, or have you been living in a cave for four years?

The president who is the subject of your idolatry is the one who called for the commission, remember? And then he simply ignored it.

Personally, I would prefer to modify the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan in a number of ways, but suggest that at the very least it could be the starting point for the debate over our looming fiscal abyss.

Fast Gunn, if you're that offended by the mere mention of Simpson-Bowles, why don't you tell us what sort of plan you would like to see.

Go ahead, please enlighten us!

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I'll drink to that, but would note that I believe his luck will be a lot better if he moves toward the center like Bill Clinton did in 1995.

Too bad the "center" was ignored and then moved by the Teapublicans.

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

That means that he needs to lead the nation in serious discussions (not just happy talk) of entitlement reform, tax reform, and something resembling Simpson-Bowles.
(If he doesn't like Simpson-Bowles, it should at least be the starting point for a wide-ranging debate, or he should tell us what his plan is for placing us on a glideslope to fiscal sustainability.)

Simpson Bowles suggested military spending CUTS not just a slowdown on RISING expenditures. The Teapublicans have already declared that military cuts are non-negotiable!

There should be a realistic look at why the U.S. Teapublicans "need" to have TEN TIMES the military budget of the next ten nations on the military expenditure list combined. We ALL know it is to appease their large defense contractor donors and the subsidized budget that develops the arms those donors sell to the rest of the world. Even the tear gas in the Egyptian Spring uprising was U.S. made.

The so-called "center" would first have to move LEFT of where Simpson Bowles advocated starting. Social Security is fixed (doesn't need repair) through 2023 as it stands NOW.

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Remember, Bill Clinton cooperated with Republican congresses to produce serious welfare reform and responsible budgets. Government spending as a percentage of GDP fell by about three percentage points during the latter half of the 1990s.

Corporate America withheld over two trillion earned dollars from reinvestment over the Obama years in apathetic attempt to sink Obama and his policies. Even "The Chamber of Commerce" became "The Chamber to Stunt American Growth and Defeat Obama".

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

From this point forward, navigating the shoals is going to be very difficult.

With friends like those gaming the system, not even Obama was able to help the country as much as he could have with cooperation. Do you not remember the lockstep Teapublican obstructionism that set an all-time filibuster/cloture record?

The MIDDLE? The MIDDLE is now to the LEFT of Simpson-Bowles and the election just validated that!

[Yssup Rider]

Republicans spent so much political capital trying to sink Obama that they sunk themselves.

No credibility. No unity. No prospects.

I read that Marco Rubio is now advocating for schools to "include" creationism in science curriculum.

These fucking idiots still think Americans will swallow their bullshit.

The SOUTH will be blue in four years at this rate.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Too bad the "center" was ignored and then moved by the Teapublicans.

And too bad the center was likewise ignored by Barack Obama. Have you looked at the extent to which spending was elevated in FY2009? Of course, much of it should have been considered emergency measures (TARP, temporary extensions of unemployment benefits, etc.) to deal with the crisis at hand, but the newly bloated level got built into what essentially became a new "baseline." There's been absolutely no effort to wind that down, and federal spending levels remain at an annual rate that's about $800 billion greater than that of about five years ago.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Simpson Bowles suggested military spending CUTS not just a slowdown on RISING expenditures. The Teapublicans have already declared that military cuts are non-negotiable!

I don't care what "Teapublicans" have "declared" is non-negotiable, and submit that the President of the United States certainly should not care! I realize this would require actual leadership, but Obama is perfectly free to give a speech invoking the wisdom of a Republican president of just over fifty years ago, who warned of the growing threat posed by the military-industrial complex -- sometimes referred to as the military-industrial-congressional complex. Since no one thinks of Ike as being a guy who was soft on defense, I think Obama would easily be able to sell the notion that we should temper the need for strong national defense with the pressing need for fiscal responsibility. He could simply explain why those who are not critical to national security should no longer be allowed to fatten themselves at federally-funded troughs.

If he needs to go over congress's head and take the case directly to the public, fine. That's what effective, competent presidents sometimes need to do.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Corporate America withheld over two trillion earned dollars from reinvestment over the Obama years in apathetic attempt to sink Obama and his policies.

Say what?!?

What management team would "spite itself" by refraining from otherwise desirable investment or reinvestment simply to damage a president it opposes? That just makes no sense at all. Managements act in their self-interests and/or those of their shareholders; their bonus pools and prospects for personal advancement depend on that.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Social Security is fixed (doesn't need repair) through 2023 as it stands NOW.

Social Security is "fixed" through 2023 only if you ignore the obvious fact that the Social Security "trust fund" is essentially an accounting gimmick. Benefits will outweigh receipts by a widening margin over the period. However, the fiscal gap attributable to Social Security pales in comparison to that attributable to Medicare. Yet no serious reform plan is on the table, even though taxes required to finance an unreformed system would crush prospects for future economic growth.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

The MIDDLE? The MIDDLE is now to the LEFT of Simpson-Bowles and the election just validated that!

????

Just a few paragraphs earlier, you said that the center would "first have to move left" of Simpson-Bowles. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

With friends like those gaming the system, not even Obama was able to help the country as much as he could have with cooperation. Do you not remember the lockstep Teapublican obstructionism that set an all-time filibuster/cloture record?

I agree that Republicans have acted in a starkly obstructionist manner, and likely would attempt to obstruct almost anything Obama tries to do. However, I saw him attempt to do very little that didn't need to be obstructed!

Could you please explain what Obama has proposed over the last couple of years that would have had any chance to "help the country as much as he could have with cooperation?"

The "American Jobs Act" of last year, for instance, was little more than a "Mini-Me" version of the $800 billion "stimulus package" of 2009.

In other words, it was nothing more than a collection of gimmicky, supposedly temporary tax cuts, political payoffs, pork projects, and blue sky fantasies.

The cost per job temporarily "created" or "saved" would have been at least several hundred thousand dollars.

Nobody ever learns anything from the past, and people still wonder why there's not that much support for all this stuff.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I stand by my previous statement.

I don't think the threat of Civil unrest has ever been quite this great. At least in my lifetime. In a Global sense even more so. Russia is even stepping into the conflict in Gaza although minimal, conflicts escalate rapidly. But the real disturbing reality of it all is the organizing principals of any society is for war. The authority of the state over it's people resides in it's war powers.

[oden]

Ok, raise taxes on everyone,and make it mandatory that to vote you have to pay taxes. I'll go for that as long as everyone has some skin in the game.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Excuse me, but aren't you the guy who continually prattles on about how Obama is "digging us out of the deep hole" left by GWB, when it's obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking that he's digging a much deeper hole? Have you noticed our current deficit spending run rate, or have you been living in a cave for four years?

The president who is the subject of your idolatry is the one who called for the commission, remember? And then he simply ignored it.

Personally, I would prefer to modify the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan in a number of ways, but suggest that at the very least it could be the starting point for the debate over our looming fiscal abyss.

Fast Gunn, if you're that offended by the mere mention of Simpson-Bowles, why don't you tell us what sort of plan you would like to see.

Go ahead, please enlighten us!

Before a real debate of any kind can happen, the truth must be acknowledged. How can you be included in any type of debate, critical thinking or any other type of thinking, when you refuse to confront your party’s proven false talking points?
Admit it. Your premise that Obama did nothing has been proven wrong.
Admit it before you make another false statement.

Prove you belong in any type of real debate.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/30/ryan-and-simpson-bowles-commission-full-story/

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by acp5762

I don't think the threat of Civil unrest has ever been quite this great. At least in my lifetime. In a Global sense even more so. Russia is even stepping into the conflict in Gaza although minimal, conflicts escalate rapidly. But the real disturbing reality of it all is the organizing principals of any society is for war. The authority of the state over it's people resides in it's war powers.

The only people who fear....or even talk about civil unrest, are the pretend "conservatives".

The degree of contempt that real conservatives view the chicken little crowd with surpasses the level of my contempt for them.

They just cost you an election. Remember?

[Yssup Rider]

Civil Unrest? yeah, I can see it now ... Crazy Fox fed bitches looting the Nordstrom's!

LMAO @ unstable dipshits!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Before a real debate of any kind can happen, the truth must be acknowledged. How can you be included in any type of debate, critical thinking or any other type of thinking, when you refuse to confront your party’s proven false talking points?
Admit it. Your premise that Obama did nothing has been proven wrong.
Admit it before you make another false statement.

Prove you belong in any type of real debate.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...on-full-story/

Uh, excuse me -- but don't you think it might be a good idea to refrain from making uninformed assumptions before ignorantly popping off and casting aspersions? That might help you avoid looking like an obnoxious jackass.

What's this "your party" crap? When did I say that I'm a Republican? In fact, I've been extremely critical of the Republican Party's disingenuous demagoguery and intellectual vacuousness, and have stated repeatedly that I believe that the G.O.P. needs to undertake serious reform before it should be considered viable as a party. In my view, it needs new blood and a new message.

For instance, in this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=576357

...I posted a link to this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/op...=2&ref=opinion&

...which, in my opinion, thoroughly destroys the credibility of Paul Ryan's "budget plan."

I know it seems to be a common practice around here to obnoxiously pop off without having any idea what the hell you're talking about. But please try to refrain from doing so in the future, OK?

Now if you want to prove that you belong in this debate, why don't you start by pointing out any false statements I may have made?

(Opinions with which you disagree don't count; tell me what I said that you think is patently false.)

[Yssup Rider]

So this is not about the topic? It's about your party affiliation. Right?

Just checking.