democrats name calling again...

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
With representative Gabby Giffords, the women shot by a deranged killer, making an appearence to cast a vote against the interests of the american people, you would think that civility would front and center. Of course, you would be wrong. Not content to just debate the issues, the democrats, who wrongfully tried to blame republicans for the shooters actions, began calling the republicans all sorts of bad things. Here is an article:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/02/gone-berserk-whats-with-calling-the-opposition-terrorists/

from the article:

[h=2]Gone Berserk: What’s with Calling the Opposition ‘Terrorists’?[/h]If it was some frothing-at-the-mouth liberal blogger calling Republicans “terrorists,” we could dismiss it as the mindless babblings of a hyperpartisan nitwit.
But incredibly, it is not. It is leading Democrats including the vice president of the United States who are referring to their fellow Americans who disagree with them as terrorists:
Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.
Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
It is New York Times columnists:
You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.
These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took.
It’s MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who not only referred to conservatives as “terrorists, but also as “wahhabis of American government.”
In fact, referencing terrorists, or Osama bin Laden, or al-Qaeda when describing conservatives who decided to put their foot down and demand a change in how Washington works — this done in order to save the country from a fate worse than default in a few years — has been the du jour pastime among Democrats of all levels. “Hostage takers” is another bric-a-brac tossed around when describing Republicans as well.
----------------------------------------------------

THIS IS THE NAME CALLING THAT THE DEMOCRATS DO ALL THE TIME, AND THEN ADD IN THE THUG LIKE ATTACKS BY THEIR POLITICAL ALLIES AND YOU HAVE A POLITICAL PARTY THAT CAN'T DISCUSS ISSUES WITHOUT REALLY BAD BEHAVIOR.. BEFORE THE INTERNET THEY WERE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH IT. WHAT IS IT WITH THE DEMOCRATS THAT DEBATING THE ISSUES IN A CIVIL TONE IS BEYOND THEM.
 

Empty Hands

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,269
Reaction score
200
Location
Jupiter, FL
Some Republicans used the threat of national default with all the attendant known and unknown consequences as a means to advance their ideology. That is not in rational dispute. Lost jobs, skyrocketing interest rates, a possible economic collapse due to default - all of these things are of more import to the American people than some people calling other people mean names.

Don't want to be called a terrorist or a hostage-taker? Don't act like one.
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
15,980
Reaction score
1,593
Location
In Pain
Some Republicans used the threat of national default with all the attendant known and unknown consequences as a means to advance their ideology. That is not in rational dispute. Lost jobs, skyrocketing interest rates, a possible economic collapse due to default - all of these things are of more import to the American people than some people calling other people mean names.

Don't want to be called a terrorist or a hostage-taker? Don't act like one.

Benedict Arnold would cover it nicely though....
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
You mean trying to get out of control government under control. The tax, spend, tax spend cycle with no end in sight that has destroyed the economy and will lose jobs, force interest rates to skyrocket, and will cause an economic collapse that still has yet to be addressed by the politicians in washington. The tea party republicans are the only serious members in congress right now. The democrats don't care about anything but spending more money and the establishment republicans are little better. The debt ceiling was one point, where the issues meant something, where the democrats had to pay attention to something other than raise the debt ceiling, keep raising taxes keep spending and spendin and spending without regard to the safety or stability of the country and it's future. The country is going to default if nothing is done to control the politicians. The politicians do not care. Cutting off their money is the only way to get the country on sound fiscal ground. Nothing else seems to get their attention.
 

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
57
Location
Toronto
You do realize that the debt ceiling has been raised under every single president since it was introduced in 1917, including 8 times by GWB, right?
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Yeah, and you see where that has gotten us. The tea party saw this as an opportunity to challenge the assumption that just giving the government more money, without cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, was a good thing. How else do you stop spoiled politicians from just spending money without regards to the consequences? The democrats are always whining about the rich being greedy, but the greediest people in the country are democrat politicians. They don't care that the country is going into economic disaster. As long as they have money to give to their voting blocks, they could not care less about the destruction they are causing. Raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes, spend more money, screw the future. That is essentially the democrat play book on economics.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
Do you want us to send you chocolate and nylons?
 

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
57
Location
Toronto
The democrats are always whining about the rich being greedy, but the greediest people in the country are democrat politicians. They don't care that the country is going into economic disaster. As long as they have money to give to their voting blocks, they could not care less about the destruction they are causing. Raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes, spend more money, screw the future. That is essentially the democrat play book on economics.

Did you really miss the part about both Democrats AND Republicans have raised the ceiling, over and over again?

Neither wants do do what needs to be done because neither party wants to cut their pet project parts of the budget.
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Which is why the tea party republicans stood their ground. They owe the establishment republicans nothing, they apparently aren't looking for plumb committees to sit on, and they don't care if they are re-elected, they don't want earmarks to take back to their states, you know, the kind of attitude people in this country keep saying they want in a politician but when they actually get it they allow the democrats to call them terrorists. Who was holding who hostage? Either give us more money, AND raise taxes or we won't pass the debt ceiling bill. That was the stand of the democrats. These are the same politicians who say, "If we don't get that tax increase, we are going to fire teachers, police and firemen, so you better give us the money we want or somebody is going to get hurt." And they have the nerve to call tea party members terrorists.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
I'll take the chocolate.

I will send it via the very nice Canadian Military Police officer I was working with today! he's a credit to his country and a pleasure to work with.
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
And here is a liberal cartoonist dreaming that Obama would assasinate tea party members:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/08/01/tucson-newspaper-political-cartoonist-fantasized-about-obama-sending-s



F
rom the article:

Today Tucson congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) cast her first vote since she was critically injured in a January shooting.
You'll recall that in the weeks that followed, the media bemoaned the incivility -- supposedly predominantly conservative in nature -- of the political debate which had allegedly created a climate of hate.
But there appears to to be no firestorm over how, just last week, Arizona Daily Star cartoonist David Fitzsimmons fantasized about President Obama sending a SEAL team to assassinate Tea Party-friendly House Republicans.
---------------------------
And the myth is that the republicans are the mean spirited ones who want to push grandma over the cliff, take food from the poor and are the ones causing the trouble. Meanwhile, the democrats name call and their thug allies beat up their opponents.
 

WC_lun

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
82
Location
Kansas City MO
Just another little tidbit to add to the discussion, the debt has grown 24% under Obama. It grew 158% under the Bush administration, most of which there was a Republican controlled congress. Pardon me if I'm sceptical, but it seems many of those crying out the loudest against Obama and the government's spending habits were repsonsable for creating those habits in the first place. Now we are supposed to believe they have suddenly grown a fiscal concious. A concious that I might add only seems to show up when it comes to cutting programs the poor or lower middle class use. No such thing when it comes to adressing issues such as corporate welfare through subsides or huge tax exemptions.

I'd be much more willing to believe that some of these politicians (from both sides of the isle) had a true change of heart and were actually working for the American people if cuts were across the board and many of the tax loopholes were addressed. Instead it seems corporations, lobbyist, and rich donors have congress working for them, while the poor and middle class are left to fend for themselves.

I will also take chocolate :)
 

Empty Hands

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,269
Reaction score
200
Location
Jupiter, FL
The tax, spend, tax spend cycle with no end in sight that has destroyed the economy and will lose jobs, force interest rates to skyrocket, and will cause an economic collapse that still has yet to be addressed by the politicians in washington.

On the 20-30 year time frame, if all spending and debt continues at the same level. Maybe.

So your defense for destroying the economy now, for certain, is that if we don't do something quickly...in 20 years the same thing we just caused might happen.

Brilliant thinking.
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
From the weekly standard, the debt under bush and obama:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

f
rom the article:

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.
Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama's first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama's first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama's deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.
 

Empty Hands

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,269
Reaction score
200
Location
Jupiter, FL
A few more points these reality-distorting apologetics ignore:

If the economy is the concern, right now is the worst possible time for austerity measures. The result will be slowed economic recovery and slower job growth. Which results in less revenues leading to the need for even more cuts. Brilliant thinking again.

This is not a budget debate. This is an appropriation to pay for debt already incurred. This debt has been spent already, already signed into law by a previous congress. This action amounts to sending your house keys back to the bank and walking away. It is refusing to pay your credit card bill, already charged. It is default, refusing to pay for what you've already spent. When refusing to pay your bills involves poor people walking away from their homes they can no longer afford, then the Tea Party has nothing but scorn and outrage. Now that they want the government to do the exact same thing, suddenly it's an exalted stand.

It's dishonorable. It's stupid.

It's driven by ideology and a desire to dismantle the government by any means, not by economics. The economics have been abundantly clear these past weeks.
 

Twin Fist

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,185
Reaction score
210
Location
Nacogdoches, Tx
Some Republicans used the threat of national default with all the attendant known and unknown consequences as a means to advance their ideology.


Since the right's "ideology" IS THE TRUTH, then yes, they said all those things, all of which were true, to advance thier ideology......
 

Empty Hands

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,269
Reaction score
200
Location
Jupiter, FL
what ****ing part of "we are broke, we have to stop spending NOW" is to hard to grasp

The part where this debate did not take place during the budget process, where such a debate naturally belongs, but instead took place in the context of a threat to destroy the entire economy.
 

Latest Discussions

Top