ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [236] -- Obama 2.0?

[ Posted Friday, November 30th, 2012 – 17:19 PST ]

Before his second term has even begun, are we seeing "Obama 2.0" in action? This is the question swirling around right now in the inside-the-Beltway punditocracy, and it's a refreshing one to contemplate: has President Barack Obama finally learned his lesson that his old method of legislative negotiation simply was not working? Has he, to put it another way, grown some backbone?

We'll see, we'll see. But so far, the signs certainly do seem to be positive. Obama, immediately after the election, proposed a fiscal-cliff-avoidance plan to the Republicans. They ignored it. For the past two weeks, negotiations have been taking place between Boehner and Obama (and all the other minor players). Tim Geithner went to Capitol Hill with a plan yesterday. To the utter astonishment of the Republicans, it was essentially the same plan originally proposed -- even with a few more "poison pill" additions.

Obama, as the chattering classes will tell you, is "done negotiating with himself." That's a pretty good phrase, because it accurately describes how these negotiations have taken place over Obama's first term. This time, the White House seems to be saying, that isn't going to happen.

The Republicans then made a tactical mistake. They leaked the president's plan to the media. Meaning they've now made the entire bargaining process public. But what is glaringly obvious to all but the most partisan of the public is that there is now a Democratic plan, and... nothing... from the Republicans. The Republicans just shot themselves in the foot, to put it as politely as possible. Now they've got to come up with a proposal, which (by definition, almost) is going to be more harsh than the Democratic proposal. If they fail to come up with anything, they're going to lose this battle for public opinion, and if they propose radical budget-cutting to favored programs they're equally going to pay a political price.

Meanwhile, Obama is playing this game like a virtuoso. Finally we see the "multidimensional chess master" spoken about, of yore. Where's Obama today? Off on the bully pulpit circuit, speaking at a factory that actually still makes toys in America. Pretty good optics, right there. 'Tis the season, and all.

Obama's already issued a veto threat in the negotiations -- tax rates on the wealthy will go up or he's not signing the bill. By doing so, Obama is reminding Republicans that if we go over the fiscal cliff, they will automatically go up anyway. Obama has all the leverage on this one. And he certainly looks willing to use it, at this point.

Also refreshing is the fact that Obama's opening bid was so outrageous (at least as Republicans see things). He's asking for twice the tax hikes Boehner was ready to accept in the Grand Bargain a year and a half ago, he's asking for stimulus money, and he's asking for Congress to give up its power and all its leverage over the "debt ceiling," forever. That's pretty astonishingly optimistic, right there.

Now, the Left knows Obama's not going to get everything he's asking for. But that's the whole point of negotiations -- you aim for the moon and the stars, and let the other guy talk you down a bit. Obama seems to finally have learned how to play this game effectively.

Some might scoff. "We've been here before and Obama caved," they will indeed scoff. They may wind up being right. But I have to say I'm more optimistic this time around. Obama has all the leverage here, and can come out and say at any time "if Congress refuses to act, everyone's paycheck is going to get smaller starting in January." That'll get the public's attention.

So while that "Obama 2.0" headline might be proven wrong quite quickly, hopefully it won't. Hopefully this time around we're seeing a different "Negotiator In Chief." Part of the shock this may cause is due to the fact that Obama really hasn't had such a "death match" legislative struggle since the Grand Bargain failed. And that was a year and a half ago -- time enough for Obama to have changed his style dramatically.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Speaking of shocks, this one is a big one (at least for us). I'd advise sitting down, and not taking a big drink of any beverage before you read the next sentence (to avoid doing what actors call a "spit take").

Our first winner for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Senator Joe Lieberman.

Now, one of the joys of this election season was knowing that no matter how badly things turned out on election day (President Romney, a Republican Senate, etc.), there would be one shining silver lining to it all: we would all get to watch the door hit the nether regions of Lieberman on his way out of the Senate in January. After the last decade or so of ol' Joe, this would have been satisfying indeed. We even assumed we'd be handing him a few Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards, on his way out.

Instead, we've got to hand it to Joe, he showed some integrity this week in standing up for Susan Rice. Rice, who will quite possibly be the nominee for Secretary of State, held several closed-door meetings with senators last week, to answer their questions on Benghazi. Every single Republican came out of these meetings ranting and raving, but Lieberman stepped up to the microphones and pronounced himself completely satisfied with what she had to say on the matter.

Now, normally, this could be written off as just a partisan protecting his party's president. Not with Lieberman, however. Lieberman has never been reluctant to criticize the foreign policy of Democrats, in fact he seems to actually enjoy doing so. On national security matters, he is "hawkier" (so to speak) than many Republicans. This is the man John McCain reportedly seriously considered as a running mate, remember.

So his voice was weighty and important, in the whole Benghazi "there's got to be a scandal here somewhere, dammit!" frenzy from the Republicans. For him to speak out in defense of Rice was meaningful, and for doing so he earns one of the MIDOTW awards this week. And yes, we're as surprised as anyone at this turn of events.

We do have a second MIDOTW award this week, for a state senator from Ohio named Nina Turner, but we're going to explain why in our final talking point, so that's all we'll say about it for now.

[Congratulate Senator Joe Lieberman on his Senate contact page, and Ohio state Senator Nina Turner on her official contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Being the "first" at anything for an entire group of people is always tough. Ask a woman or a minority -- when you're the "first (fill in the blank) to ever (fill in the achievement)," you have to be twice as good as the average just to get there. That includes being twice as squeaky-clean, though.

Our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is, sadly, the first transgender state representative elected in New Hampshire, Stacie Laughton. That's a big achievement. But her failings have nothing to do with her historic achievement. They are more mundane than that. She fell prey to a disease which affects a lot of politicians, no matter what their gender identity -- she thought her criminal past wasn't worth sharing with the voters before the election.

Laughton has been convicted or admits to the following: credit card fraud, tire-slashing, falsifying physical evidence, and faking an illness to ride in an ambulance. She served time for the fraud and evidence-tampering charges. And she forgot to mention any of it during her campaign.

This is beyond disappointing, it is downright disgraceful. And it has nothing to do with her gender identity -- it has to do with her being a convicted crook. After waffling over the decision for few days, she has today turned in her resignation.

While this was the right thing to do, it will not stop us from awarding her the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, since she has done more than enough to earn it.

[Since Stacie Laughton has resigned, she is now a private citizen, and we do not provide contact info for such as a rule here.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 236 (11/30/12)

Before we begin, we have to share a hilarious headline from a blog on the Washington Post. This would have been funnier a few weeks ago, of course, but you've still got to hand it to whomever wrote the headline "Obama Has Romney For Lunch." Well done, Sir or Madam, well done indeed!

Heh.

After taking a week off last week for Turkey Weekend, we can see that it's time once again to offer up suggested talking points for Democrats to use in the coming days. Everyone from an interviewee on a Sunday morning political show to a guy or gal discussing politics around a water cooler can join in, as always.

It's going to be a fun week for talking points, because the Republicans are so freaked out about Obama's newfound bargaining toughness. Of course, if talking points aren't your thing, then you can always read about ways to cut the federal budget without slashing the safety net -- but we're feeling feisty this week, so let's get started, shall we?

 

1
   Where's your plan?

This is really the only talking point necessary this week. It is that powerful an argument. This should be on the lips of every Democrat interviewed this weekend, and should be repeated until the Republicans cry "Uncle!" This would best be used by a Democrat sitting next to a Republican, for the exit line to have the most punch, of course.

"Democrats have put forward a proposal. Republicans have not. We cannot bargain with what doesn't exist. Republicans need to get serious, and the way to get serious in Washington is to present a plan or write a draft of a bill. Once they do so, we can negotiate over the differences between their plan and ours. But our plan is now on the table. Where is the Republican plan? [turn to Republican interviewee next to you] Where's your plan? It's time to put your cards on the table. We have done so. You have not. Where is the Republican plan?"

 

2
   GOP wanted a public debate

Republicans will sputter, in response to that first talking point. So helpfully point out how this situation is one which they created all by themselves. Again, this works best as a response to weaseling by a Republican sitting next to you.

"I'm sorry, but you can't now say that you want to preserve the secrecy of the negotiations. President Obama sent Tim Geithner down with an offer. Republicans immediately leaked this offer to the press. You guys wanted to have this fight in public -- because you're the ones who put it before the public. Well, fair enough. We stand by the Obama offer. That's our plan. Where's yours? Since you want the public to see how the negotiations stand, then you've put the ball in your own court. You can't expect anyone to now buy that these negotiations need to be kept secret. So where's your plan? Let the public know what your position is!"

 

3
   'Tis the season!

There are almost an unlimited amount of metaphors and allusions and even clichés to be used, at this time of year. Obama has already started this ball rolling. The possibilities are endless.

"Republicans are defending to the end their tax cuts for millionaires. If they don't get their way, they're going to give every American taxpayer a big old lump of coal for the holidays this year. The president is right, the American public is going to see very soon now who is naughty in Washington and who is nice. Having a tantrum over tax cuts for the top two percent of earners in this country should not give you the right to elect yourself Grinch for the other ninety-eight percent's paychecks. We're on Bob Cratchit's side of this fight, and Republicans are fighting to the death for yet another tax cut for Mr. Scrooge."

 

4
   Holding middle class tax cuts hostage

Obama is also using this line to great effect.

"President Obama is calling on Republicans to not hold middle class tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for millionaires. I agree -- I don't think tax cuts for ninety-eight percent of America should be used as some sort of political leverage by the Republicans. But then, I'm a Democrat, so you shouldn't take my word for it. Instead, I'd like to now read what a staunchly-conservative Republican -- Representative Tom Cole -- had to say this week on the issue... and I quote: Some people seem to think this is leverage. I think that's wrong. You don't consider people's lives as leverage. I live in a blue-collar neighborhood. I've got a retired master sergeant as my next-door neighbor, police officer across the street. These are working folks, they're great people, and the idea that I would ever use them as leverage is just wrong. Unquote. I fully agree with Representative Cole, and I call on the Speaker of the House to immediately bring the Senate bill which restores the middle class tax cuts so we can all vote on it. Anything less is just holding every middle class taxpayer's paycheck hostage, as even honest Republicans will admit."

 

5
   Laugh it up, Mitch

This one is pathetically easy. It's a cheap shot, but when someone walks up to you and begs you to take such a cheap shot, it's hard to resist at times.

"I heard Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell actually laughed when he was presented with President Obama's proposal. Have you all got that? McConnell thinks it is funny that everyone's paycheck will be smaller in January if Republicans don't get big tax cuts for the rich. To everyone worried about what their first paycheck of 2013 will have in it, Mitch has just laughed in your face. He calls the president's proposal 'not serious' but he refuses to come up with a proposal of his own. His party is willing to send us over the fiscal cliff if millionaires don't keep their tax cuts, and he thinks anything short of that is downright funny. You'd think someone would take him aside and explain that showing such raw disdain for such a huge portion of the country didn't work out so well for his party in the election, wouldn't you? This is no laughing matter. It's going to affect hundreds of millions of Americans. It's not a joke, Mitch."

 

6
   In a coma?

Speaking of the election, bring it up whenever you can fit it in. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had the best line of the week, while reiterating Obama's veto threat, so we're just going to use his quote for this talking point:

There can be no deal without rates on top earners going up. This should not be news to anyone on Capitol Hill. It is certainly not news to anyone in America who was not in a coma during the election.

 

7
   What GOP really stands for

[Note: after this whole article was written comes breaking news on an unrelated story. Republicans figured out that naming all white men to their House committee chair posts was pretty a pretty stupid move, and have now named a woman chair to a minor committee. An unnamed Democratic aide came up with a pretty good slogan (which is why we're mentioning it here), responding that the opposition should be called the "Grand Old Patriarchs." That's pretty good, but we still feel the following is even better.]

And finally, we explain why Nina Turner won her MIDOTW award this week. Turner is in one of those state legislatures infested with Republicans who absolutely insist that the number one priority of their party should be continuing to wage the War On Women. So Turner made a T-shirt to vent her frustration. What she came up with is such an all-around great slogan, we think it ought to become the standard response to any and all such Republican legislative Puritanism. Check out this somewhat-obstructed photo of Turner in her shirt. Our final talking point of the week is Turner's slogan, which clearly earned her the prestigious MIDOTW, for its soundbite nature alone:

"G.O.P. -- Get Out of my Panties!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress

 

224 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [236] -- Obama 2.0?”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    "G.O.P. -- Get Out of my Panties!"

    Fine..

    Then pay for you own damn contraceptives! :D

    Michale
    0108

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Turner is in one of those state legislatures infested with Republicans who absolutely insist that the number one priority of their party should be continuing to wage the War On Women.

    There is as much a "War On Women" from the GOP as there is a "War On Christmas" from the Democrats...

    Michale
    0109

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    109 comments already!? Wow!!

    Chris has certainly earned this wealth of commentary from you ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do. :)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll bet that Tim Geithner had a lot of fun on Capital Hill (as he always does) dealing with congressional Republicans and other nefarious individuals.

    While I shouldn't wish another day in the treasury secretary's office on my worst enemy, I will be sorry to see Geithner leave this most difficult and thankless post. It's hard to imagine who could possibly fill his shoes ...

  5. [5] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I will be sorry to see Geithner leave this most difficult and thankless post. It's hard to imagine who could possibly fill his shoes.

    Indeed, Liz. He will be missed ... :(

    There can be no deal without rates on top earners going up. This should not be news to anyone on Capitol Hill. It is certainly not news to anyone in America who was not in a coma during the election.

    Yes, Chris! I hope the White House will also point out that all the conservative talk about trying to close loopholes and redo the tax code is the Romney plan. The Romney plan the country just voted against.

    And I'm making sure my GOP Congressman hears the message loud and clear as well. I know he won't like it, but he's going to hear about it.

    BTW- I like that there seems to be a little more spring in the step of Democrats everywhere these days. Perhaps because they're learning to welcome these fights on principle.

    -David

  6. [6] 
    dsws wrote:

    Democrats have put forward a proposal. Republicans have not.

    Sure sounded like a proposal to me: they're willing to let the poor pay more taxes, if Democrats insist on raising taxes, as long as the rich pay less.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW- I like that there seems to be a little more spring in the step of Democrats everywhere these days. Perhaps because they're learning to welcome these fights on principle.

    You're assuming of course, that Democrats HAVE principles..

    There is no evidence of this... :D

    Michale....
    0110

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Chris has certainly earned this wealth of commentary from you ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do. :)

    I do indeed... :D

    Michale
    0112

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    they're willing to let the poor pay more taxes, if Democrats insist on raising taxes, as long as the rich pay less.

    Just as Democrats are willing to let the poor pay more taxes because Democrats can't stick it to the rich...

    As always, it works both ways...

    A factual point that Weigantians rarely get... :D

    Michale.....
    0113

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with Geinther is that he was part of the problem of the financial meltdown..

    To expect him to be part of the solution is simply a bridge too far for most Americans..

    Michale
    0114

  11. [11] 
    akadjian wrote:

    To expect him to be part of the solution is simply a bridge too far for most Americans.

    Seems to me like "most Americans" just voted resoundingly for the Obama plan.

    Remember, the plan Geithner delivered was the same plan Obama fought for in the election.

    People do not want the Romney plan of more tax breaks for the rich. This is why it seems ridiculous that Republicans keep proposing the Romney plan

    -David

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- Thanks Michale for your help in naming this the "Romney plan" ... I can't seem to find anyone on the conservative side who really likes Romney. Or his plan. Which makes it a great idea to keep using this ... it's the Christmas gift which keeps on giving ... :)

    Also, has anyone seen "Lincoln" yet? Daniel Day Lewis was simply amazing in this movie.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Seems to me like "most Americans" just voted resoundingly for the Obama plan.

    That's the mistake ya'all, Obama and the Left are making..

    Ya'all are assuming that, just because Obama won the election, that means that the majority of Americans are lined up behind Democrats...

    If this were true, then Dems would have taken the house..

    Obama only won by less than 3%...

    That is not, by ANY stretch of the definition, a mandate....

    The majority of Americans simply choose the lesser of two evils..

    As time will tell, buyer remorse will set in.. It's already starting..

    Obama's poll numbers are already going down...

    Michale.....
    0115

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [13] -

    Actually, Obama's up by 3.5 percent, as the final votes trickle in. His margin's been growing since election day. Check out wikipedia, or anywhere final vote counts are posted.

    The cruel irony?

    Rounded off, Romney will win 47% of the vote (snicker...).

    Right now, he's at 47.4%, and falling. Obama's at 50.9 percent and climbing.

    Obama is, I believe (haven't checked it) the only Democrat to win over 50% of the electorate -- twice -- since FDR (or, at the least, Truman). Chew on that one, for some perspective.

    Obama's margin of victory, I hasten to point out, is FAR FAR bigger than Dubya managed in '04. But more on that comparison tomorrow, since it's time for Obama Poll Watch once again...

    As for his poll numbers, hasn't Rasmussen (snicker) had Obama at 54 percent approval for about a solid week, now?

    :-)

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [1] -

    Righty-o. Just as soon as every male in the country with private insurance starts paying for his own damn Viagra.

    Michale [2] -

    Oh, please, please, PLEASE, Santa, PLEASE make the Republicans believe this for another election cycle! Pretty please?

    Heh.

    LizM [3,4] -

    Hey, your boy Timmy did the "full Ginsberg" (look it up, anyone scratching their heads) this morning, and he did real good!

    I was very impressed. Obama Administration 2.0 indeed. This deal will be Geithner's swan song, so it's going to get very interesting for the next few weeks. From what I saw this morning, he's in top form to handle the challenge.

    Michale [8] -

    What I find most tantalizing is that you have chosen to use a FOUR-digit counter at the bottom. Now that's impressive!

    Look for me to finally get my act together (WARNING: this means kittens!!!) long about this Tuesday, for the big kickoff...

    David [12] -

    That is an excellent, excellent point, and I do belive I'll start calling it the "Romney plan" from this point forward. It really has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

    (snerk snerk) ...whoops... Santa's watching, I've got to cool it on the schadenfreude...

    Heh.

    Michale [13] -

    One last one -- the House. You do know that a million more people voted for Dems for the House than the GOP, don't you? The only reason Repubs held was gerrymandering, plain and simple. See you in 2014...

    :-)

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW

    Actually, Obama's up by 3.5 percent, as the final votes trickle in. His margin's been growing since election day. Check out wikipedia, or anywhere final vote counts are posted.

    Are we really going to quibble over .5%? :D

    Oh, please, please, PLEASE, Santa, PLEASE make the Republicans believe this for another election cycle! Pretty please?

    It's kewl... It just means ya'all can't whine and complain about GOP fear-mongering any more.. :D

    Michale
    0116

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I find most tantalizing is that you have chosen to use a FOUR-digit counter at the bottom. Now that's impressive!

    Yea, I figured it would give me a goal to shoot for.. :D

    Michale
    0117

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    One last one -- the House. You do know that a million more people voted for Dems for the House than the GOP, don't you? The only reason Repubs held was gerrymandering, plain and simple. See you in 2014...

    Doesn't matter. If the American people were lined up behind Democrats as ya'all (and Obama et al) THINK they are, Dems would have taken the House...

    But, I honestly hope that Democrats overplay their hand based on this incorrect belief of a mythical mandate..

    Do you recall how bad the American people reacted to Obama pushing an agenda that 75% of the people disagreed with???

    By all means.. Make the same mistake twice.. :D

    Michale
    0118

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/50037216

    Obama and the Democrats... Warriors for the Middle Class...

    Sheeya right..

    Everything Obama and the Democrats have done has screw'ed over the Middle Class time and time again...

    Now even MORE of the middle class are losing their jobs and losing hours/pay..

    All because of Obama and the Democrats...

    Good job, Dem!!!

    You'll have the US in Third-World country status in no time!

    Michale
    0119

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey, your boy Timmy did the "full Ginsberg" (look it up, anyone scratching their heads) this morning, and he did real good!

    I was very impressed. Obama Administration 2.0 indeed. This deal will be Geithner's swan song, so it's going to get very interesting for the next few weeks. From what I saw this morning, he's in top form to handle the challenge.

    So, I guess Obama's claim to "reach across the aisle" and compromise was just another BS claim that Obama has no intention of keeping.

    And ya'all LIKE that!!???

    I always said that, when Democrats are down they whine and whine about "Compromise"...

    But when Dems are up, their idea of "Compromise" is "My Way Or The Highway"...

    I am proven correct once again....

    Michale....
    0120

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    This one's for you, Stig.. :D

    Speaking of me being proven right again..

    CAIRO (AP) - An Islamist-dominated panel began a fast-track vote on a final draft of a new Egyptian constitution Thursday, pushing through the document despite liberals' boycott in a move likely to stoke a deepening political crisis between the Islamist president and the opposition.

    The assembly, overwhelmingly made up of allies of President Mohammed Morsi, abruptly moved up the vote - which hadn't been expected to take place for another two months - in order to pass the draft before Egypt's Supreme Constitution Court rules on Sunday on whether to dissolve the panel.
    apnews.myway.com/article/20121129/DA2RN8882.html

    Muslim Brotherhood 'paying gangs to go out and rape women and beat men protesting in Egypt' as thousands of demonstrators pour on to the streets
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241374/Muslim-Brotherhood-paying-gangs-rape-women-beat-men-protesting-Egypt-thousands-demonstrators-pour-streets.html

    Things are going down in Egypt EXACTLY how they went down in Iran...

    History is repeating itself...

    And our aid to Egypt won't mean diddley squat to the Egyptian military..

    Any more than our aid meant something to the Palestinians when they pushed for a seat at the UN table..

    The US is frak'ed in the region. Period..

    All because our president didn't have the balls to lead from... well, the lead...

    As any military commander worth a damn will tell you. You can't be a REMF'er and expect to push your interests after others (better than yourself) win the battle...

    Michale
    0121

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, I guess Obama's claim to "reach across the aisle" and compromise was just another BS claim that Obama has no intention of keeping.

    What's the compromise Republicans are offering?

    Looks to me like all they've done so far is complain.

    I think the Democratic negotiation position on this is quite strong as they can do nothing, let the tax cuts expire, and then propose a tax cut reduction on 98% of Americans in the next year.

    This is the battle Republicans don't want because ... quite frankly ... it will make them look like they're fighting for the top 2% (which is the group they are fighting for but it's the last thing they want to appear to be doing).

    Now if I were the Democrats, I'd be willing to compromise if the compromise were a good one. Otherwise, I'd go the above route.

    So far, I haven't even seen Republicans offer much in the way of a compromise.

    -David

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think the Democratic negotiation position on this is quite strong as they can do nothing, let the tax cuts expire, and then propose a tax cut reduction on 98% of Americans in the next year.

    Of course you do.. :D

    Here is the Democrats offer...

    1.6 TRILLION dollars in very specific and detailed new taxes..

    $400 Billion in vague spending cuts to be determined at a later date...

    Now, be honest. Is THAT a compromise???

    Let me put it another way..

    What would YOU say if Republicans offered 1.6 TRILLION dollars in very specific and very detailed spending cuts and $400 billion in vague taxes to be determined at a later date..

    Ya'all would LAUGH at such a deal...

    The Republicans accepted vague promises with Obamacare and were screwed over, along with the American people..

    Like I said.. Ya'all only want compromise when Dems are down...

    Michale
    0122

  24. [24] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This guy is one of the top 2% ...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/sheldon-adelson-2012-election_n_2223589.html

    Adelson donated $150 million to try to unelect Obama and try to help the GOP take control of Congress ... The entire Romney campaign only spent $750 million.

    That's who you're fighting for, Michale. Guys like Sheldon Adelson, who wanted a government more "favorable" to his business, probably because his business is under investigation for money laundering.

    -David

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    It makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever to give the government MORE money if they can't show any fiscal discipline...

    Think of the government as a recalcitrant and irresponsible teenager...

    Is the solution to their out of control spending, giving them MORE money to blow???

    Of course not...

    Michale
    0123

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's who you're fighting for, Michale. Guys like Sheldon Adelson, who wanted a government more "favorable" to his business, probably because his business is under investigation for money laundering.

    You have it backwards..

    His business is under investigation for money laundering BECAUSE he gave 150 mil to defeat Obama..

    But, if you REALLY want to go that route, shall we look at the character of George Soros?? What about Warren Buffet???

    Hmmmmm Something about stones and glass houses come to mind...

    Michale
    0124

  27. [27] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What would YOU say if Republicans offered 1.6 TRILLION dollars in very specific and very detailed spending cuts and $400 billion in vague taxes to be determined at a later date.

    Oh, you mean like the Grand Bargain Obama wanted to sign?

    The one that was 90% what Republicans wanted with all spending cuts and very little tax increases.

    And yet ... Republicans turned it down.

    Please ... it's obvious to everyone which side is nearly impossible to work with.

    Speaking of impossible to work with ... Where is the Republican compromise offer?

    I notice you didn't mention that.

    -David

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    His business is under investigation for money laundering BECAUSE he gave 150 mil to defeat Obama.

    Sure ... Michale.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please ... it's obvious to everyone which side is nearly impossible to work with.

    Of course you would say that.. You are on the Democrats side..

    I am on neither side (sans the American People) and I see that BOTH sides are impossible to work with..

    :D

    Michale
    0125

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    His business is under investigation for money laundering BECAUSE he gave 150 mil to defeat Obama.

    Once again, the facts belay the mockery.. :D

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/08/04/sheldon-adelsons-sands-targeted-in-money-laundering-investigation/

    Of course, it's just a big coincidence, right?? :D

    Right, David... :D

    Michale....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many Romney donors found themselves the target of IRS and Justice Dept investigations..

    But, it's all just a big coincidence, right?? :D

    Suuurreee it is... :D

    Michale
    0127

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... It's understandable..

    It IS the Chicago way, after all..

    I just thought ya'all might have a problem with such skullduggery... :D

    Ya'all sure seem to when it's Republicans doing it to Democrats...

    Michale
    0128

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Many Romney donors found themselves the target of IRS and Justice Dept investigations.

    So there's more crooked Romney donors?

    Kidding ... if you read the article you posted about Adelson ...

    "Adelson has been locked in a court battle with his former CEO of Sands China, Steve Jacobs. As I wrote earlier, Jacobs is suing Sands for breach of contract and alleging he was let go after refusing orders from Adelson to break the law. He has since accused the Sands of promoting prostitution, working with mafia figures, bullying banks and potentially violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by putting a government official on its payroll. Jacobs is reportedly seeking roughly $100 million in damages. The suit also kicked off a Federal investigation into whether the Sands broke the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by bribing Chinese officials in Macao where Sands runs a lucrative gaming empire."

    Notice how within the article, the author actually says that it was the lawsuit which kicked off the investigation.

    Yet, like Rush Limbaugh and right wing talk show hacks, the author insinuates that Adelson was somehow targeted for donating to Republicans.

    Notice he never comes out and states what you did, Michale. Why? Because he has no evidence so he can't take the next step. He just insinuates.

    Conspiracy theory 101 ...

    -David

  34. [34] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    The point you are missing out is clear:
    1. Democrats won the Presidency easily, 62-38%. A 24 point margin.
    2. The number 1 policy advocated in this Presidential election by Obama, which he won by 24 points, was his tax plan.
    3. Democrats GAINED seats in the Senate in a year they were supposed to be on defence
    4. Democrats won the House vote by around 0.7%.

    In addition to this, 60% of voters on voting day said they support tax increases for the wealthy. A TWENTY POINT margin (i.e. the same margin Obama won by).

    The people have spoken loud and clear. There is only 1 thing blocking the people from getting what they want and what they voted for...

    Obama is saying 'we are listening to what the people want'; Republicans are saying 'we don't care what the people want or said, we are offering the same discredited plan that we just ran on and lost'.

    Not only this, but Obama became one of the 1st Presidents ever to run on a tax INCREASE and WIN.

    Also I like this image to sum up the Republicans stance just now: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-u4r3le7j4f4/ULuJIb272gI/AAAAAAAAJ_4/ZYsiyqFRL0w/s1600/a%2Bfiscal%2Bcliff%2Bsummation%2B12-1-12.jpg

    I get bored of repeating the same points over and over again though. Republicans won't listen even when hard evidence proves their tax policies are unpopular. I wonder why? Nothing to do with their financial backers and self-interest? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

  35. [35] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW,
    Before your poll watch column tomorrow here is an interesting commentary on Obama's post-election bounce: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/polls-show-below-average-post-election-approval-bounce-for-obama/

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Notice he never comes out and states what you did, Michale. Why? Because he has no evidence so he can't take the next step. He just insinuates.

    Just like ya'all insinuate that he's crooked..

    You DO know it's "innocent til proven guilty" right??

    Or does that only apply to Democrats?? :D

    Michale
    0129

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    "Of course, you can PROVE that, right? Oh yea, that's right. I forgot. You were absent the day they taught LAW at Law School"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale....
    0130

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why is the Obama campaign still asking for Campaign Contributions??

    http://politicker.com/2012/12/obama-campaign-still-asking-for-contributions/

    Gotta squeeze even MORE money out of the American people... :^/

    Must be a Democrat thing.

    Michale.....
    0131

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Notice how within the article, the author actually says that it was the lawsuit which kicked off the investigation.

    Would the investigation had been kicked off by the lawsuit if Adelson hadn't been a high profile Romney donor??

    The lawsuit started early in 2011 a year and a half later, the Justice Dept starting investigating.. AFTER Adelson became a high profile Romney Donor..

    Com'on, David. You were likely born at night, but I am sure it wasn't LAST night!! :D

    If the roles were reversed and Adelson was a high profile Dem donor being pursued by a GOP Justice Dept a YEAR AND A HALF *AFTER* a lawsuit allegedly triggered the investigation, ya'all would be screaming for blood..

    I also noticed how you ignore the fact that Dem supporters have a lot of skeletons in their closet as well..

    Why is that??

    Buffett owes billions of dollars in back taxes to the US..

    Soros and his crimes??? Don't even get me started..

    Like I said.. Stones and Glass Houses...

    Michale
    0132

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically what you are saying is that the rule is "Innocent until proven guilty" except if you are a Republican then you are guilty even if PROVEN innocent..

    Whereas, if you are a Democrat you are innocent of anything and everything even WHEN proven guilty and are as pure as the driven snow..

    Got it.. ;^) {{wink wink}} :D

    Michale
    0133

  41. [41] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You DO know it's "innocent til proven guilty" right?

    Hahahahahahah ... do you?

    I've always thought you were the biggest fan of labeling folks as criminals or terrorists w/o any evidence. In other words, the Cheney 1% doctrine.

    But I'm glad you don't believe in this and believe in innocent until proven guilty.

    -David

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've always thought you were the biggest fan of labeling folks as criminals or terrorists w/o any evidence.

    You cannot name a SINGLE time that I labled a person a terrorist or a criminal without ANY evidence..

    But I'm glad you don't believe in this and believe in innocent until proven guilty.

    Yes I do..

    So is Adelson innocent or not?? :D

    I know it would stick in yer craw to say "yes" so I don't expect an answer.. :D

    Michale
    0134

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    So is Adelson innocent or not?? :D

    I'll answer my own question...

    He's a casino magnate.. Of COURSE he ain't innocent.. :D

    My point is, being a Romney donor has absolutely NO BEARING on his guilt or innocence of any given crime..

    At least, that's the way it SHOULD be...

    But, I realize that, in Weigantia, being a Republican and trying to elect Republicans is the greatest crime of all.. :D

    Michale
    0135

  44. [44] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You cannot name a SINGLE time that I labled a person a terrorist or a criminal without ANY evidence..

    Uhm Michale you said "the majority of Muslims" support terrorism. Talk about basically labelling and judging over a billion people in 1 sentence.

    I think you later changed the statement to the majority of "eastern Muslims"... But still, point proven.

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I know it would stick in yer craw to say "yes" so I don't expect an answer.. :D

    He's under investigation. That's all I ever said. So yes, technically he's still innocent because there hasn't been any trial. Saying this doesn't bother me at all.

    You cannot name a SINGLE time that I labled a person a terrorist or a criminal without ANY evidence.

    Ummmmmmm. Remember the mosque being build in NY? By terrorist supporters?

    I believe you've also argued that most Muslims support terrorism.

    I believe you've also called me an economic terrorist because I was arguing for pulling money from the 5 large banks.

    I believe you also labelled the entire Occupy movement terrorists.

    Your MO seems to be that you take a single incident and use this to blame a larger group of people.

    -David

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm Michale you said "the majority of Muslims" support terrorism. Talk about basically labelling and judging over a billion people in 1 sentence.

    That's because there is EVIDENCE to back this up...

    Organized terrorism by Eastern Muslims simply could NOT exist without the tacit approval of the masses..

    It's a no brainer..

    To those with an objective brain, that is...

    Michale
    0136

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's under investigation. That's all I ever said. So yes, technically he's still innocent because there hasn't been any trial. Saying this doesn't bother me at all.

    So, he's under investigation. So was Richard Jewell...

    We know how THAT turned out..

    Since you mentioned it in the context of Adelson being a Romney donor, you OBVIOUSLY trying to make a connection between being a criminal and being a Republican donor..

    Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to claim otherwise. :D

    Michale
    0137

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe you've also argued that most Muslims support terrorism.

    Groups like Al Aqeda and the many thousands of Eastern Muslim terrorist groups simply could NOT exist without tactic approval from the masses..

    History is replete with examples of societies that stood up and eliminated organized groups that ran contrary to civilized values..

    The simple FACT that Eastern Muslim terrorist groups have the impact that they do is directly attributable to the tacit approval of the societies that they embed themselves into.

    I realize that it's not P.C. to say this.

    Which is why I am saying it and ya'all are arguing against it. :D

    Michale
    0138

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Not to mention how you seem to think that ...

    - Democrats = Socialists
    - The Left is all the same
    - 47% of the American population is lazy
    - The media is liberal

    Seems you're quite fond of broad generalizations.

    -David

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's another Democrat's view of Obama 2.0

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/obama_even_more_reckless_CsWlB2ywB2zyfuS9d9JMsL#ixzz2DzkrGce

    Where's the compromise ya'all were demanding??

    Oh, that's right.. Compromise is for Republicans...

    "We don't need no stinkin' compromise!!"
    -Democrats

    Once again, I called it dead on ballz accurate... :D

    Michale
    0139

  51. [51] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Since you mentioned it in the context of Adelson being a Romney donor, you OBVIOUSLY trying to make a connection between being a criminal and being a Republican donor.

    No. The argument I was making (which you can agree or disagree with) is that Adelson likely donated to the Romney campaign w/ the expectation of favors. Whether these are tax cuts or breaks for his casinos.

    This point was in support of my other argument that Republicans only represent their donors from the top 2%. This is why they are fighting so hard against tax increases for the top 2%.

    You can disagree with the above, but I never made any such argument about Republican donors being criminals.

    -David

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems you're quite fond of broad generalizations.

    Only when they are supported by facts after facts after facts after facts......

    Funny thing is, no one here has ANY facts to refute the claims.. :D

    Michale
    0140

  53. [53] 
    michty6 wrote:

    That's because there is EVIDENCE to back this up.

    So what you are saying is that because of evidence that SOME Muslims support terrorism you have decided the MAJORITY of Muslims are guilty of supporting terrorism. So much for your innocent until proven guilty argument!

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. The argument I was making (which you can agree or disagree with) is that Adelson likely donated to the Romney campaign w/ the expectation of favors. Whether these are tax cuts or breaks for his casinos.

    Even if true, do you HONESTLY believe that Soros and Buffet etc etc donate out of the goodness of their hearts!??

    Do you SERIOUSLY believe that???

    This point was in support of my other argument that Republicans only represent their donors from the top 2%. This is why they are fighting so hard against tax increases for the top 2%.

    And Obama and the Democrats only represent THEIR donors from the top 2%...

    My beef is you castigate the Right and give the Left a pass...

    You can disagree with the above, but I never made any such argument about Republican donors being criminals.

    The implication was there.. Else you would not have mentioned ANYTHING about any legal issues. It would be a completely irrelevant issue if you were trying to make the point about Republicans being only for the rich.. Any criminal proceedings would have NO bearing on that point..

    Michale
    0141

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even if true, do you HONESTLY believe that Soros and Buffet etc etc donate out of the goodness of their hearts!??

    Do you SERIOUSLY believe that???

    Scratch that..

    Of COURSE it's true that rich Republicans donate to Republicans for political favors..

    But if you HONESTLY believe that rich Democrats DON'T donate to Democrats for political favors...?????

    Well, I have some swampland in FL I would just LOVE to sell you!!! :D

    Michale
    0142

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, there isn't a claim, slam or attack that you can level at Republicans that CANNOT be (comparatively) leveled at Democrats.

    NOT.... ONE.... SINGLE..... ONE.....

    Michale
    0143

  57. [57] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Even if true, do you HONESTLY believe that Soros and Buffet etc etc donate out of the goodness of their hearts!?

    What tax break are they getting from Democrats?

    Or, what else are they specifically getting? Can you point to something?

    If you can't point to anything, then you again have no evidence, and you're judging people without any evidence.

    Or ... in other words, you are going against what you said you believe: innocent until proven guilty.

    -David

  58. [58] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In other words, there isn't a claim, slam or attack that you can level at Republicans that CANNOT be (comparatively) leveled at Democrats.

    This is easy.

    Republicans don't care about the interests of 47% of Americans. Mitt Romney said so himself.

    You can't say the same about Obama and Democrats or even anything close. Because at one point or another they've worked for just about everyone.

    You're making this all too easy today Michale.

    -David

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, what else are they specifically getting? Can you point to something?

    OK... So it's YOUR contention that all the millionaires donating to Democrats are doing so out of the goodness of their hearts..

    And all the millionaires donating to Republicans are doing it for some sort of payoff...

    If that is what you REALLY believe, then we are obviously on different planets and no amount of discussion will result in common ground..

    But I know you don't seriously believe that, so we're safe.. :D

    Michale
    0144

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans don't care about the interests of 47% of Americans. Mitt Romney said so himself.

    Oh, so NOW Romney = ALL Republicans everywhere???

    Iddn't in funny how one screwball comment from a Right-Winger is representative of the ENTIRE Right...

    But a Left Winger that makes a bonehead comment is an outlier and completely non-indicative of the Left in general..

    Yer right about one thing..

    ONE OF US is making it too easy... :D

    Michale...
    0145

  61. [61] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And all the millionaires donating to Republicans are doing it for some sort of payoff.

    No. Not some sort of payoff. A tax break. Or in Sheldon Adelson's case, also political favoritism for his casinos.

    What is it that millionaires donating to Democrats are getting?

    Tax increases?

    -David

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is it that millionaires donating to Democrats are getting?

    Kickbacks.. No Bid Contracts... Non-Prosecution For Tax Evasion..

    The list is endless..

    So, it IS your claim that millionaire & billionaire Democrats are giving millions out of the goodness of their hearts??

    Yea... YOU'RE not biased, eh?? :D

    Michale.....
    0146

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, we're back to the age old argument.

    The idea that Democrats are actually better than Republicans.

    When there is simply NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support such a claim and TONS AND TONS of evidence that PROVES the claim false...

    Michale
    0147

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't say the same about Obama and Democrats or even anything close. Because at one point or another they've worked for just about everyone.

    Yea??

    Howz that price of gas lately??

    Howz the median income of the American Family??

    Howz that unemplopyment record???

    Howz that ObamaCare that is killing middle class jobs and hours???

    Ask ANY American if they are better off under Obama...

    NO ONE is better off under Obama and the Democrats..

    NO ONE....

    And it's only going to get worse..

    I saids it befores and I'll says it again...

    There isn't a claim, slam or attack that you can level at Republicans that CANNOT be (comparatively) leveled at Democrats.

    Nothing said has changed that...

    Michale
    0148

  65. [65] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Kickbacks.. No Bid Contracts... Non-Prosecution For Tax Evasion.

    So who is donating for these? I'm afraid you're going to have to be a little more specific.

    So, it IS your claim that millionaire & billionaire Democrats are giving millions out of the goodness of their hearts?

    No ... it's my claim that Republicans are fighting for tax breaks for the top 2%.

    -David

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    So who is donating for these? I'm afraid you're going to have to be a little more specific.

    Ahhh so you need PROOF that Democrats are donating for these..

    Why??

    With Republicans, all you need is rumor and innuendo???

    However, I'll be generous and throw you a bone..

    Why hasn't Warren Buffet been prosecuted for not paying over a BILLION dollars in back taxes???

    No ... it's my claim that Republicans are fighting for tax breaks for the top 2%.

    And Democrats are fighting for kickbacks, union coddling and non-prosecution of Democrat donors..

    My claim is just as valid as yours...

    But I have a LOT more proof than just ONE GUY saying that 47% are dependent on government..

    Which is factual by the way...

    Michale
    0149

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    SO, how IS that price of gas under Obama??? :D

    Michale
    0149

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gas prices in 2008 were an average of $1.87 per gallon..

    Gas prices in 2012 averaged $3.87...

    I personally witnessed gas prices OVER $5.00 a gallon...

    So, tell me again how good Obama and the Democrats have been for the poor and middle class...

    Cuz I really didn't believe it the first time...

    Michale....

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/270649-house-republicans-make-22t-counter-offer-to-obama-in-debt-talksklj

    OK There's the GOP plan...

    Let's see how much Democrats are REALLY interested in compromise....

    My guess...

    NOT AT ALL.....

    Michale
    0151

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ironically enough, the GOP plan is very specific on cuts in spending and very vague on taxes and revenue...

    WOW!!!

    Did I call or what!!!???? :D

    I believe the term to describe Dems will be:

    "HOISTED BY THEIR OWN PICARD!!!"

    As opposed to Hoisted By Their Own Janeway!!!

    yuk... yuk.... yuk....

    "I crack myself up!"
    -Goose, TOP GUN

    :D

    Michale
    0152

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    “If the president is serious about joining us in an effort to reduce the deficit and protect the economy, he’ll get off the campaign trail, drop the left-wing talking points, and instruct his staff to negotiate a solution in good faith based on actual written proposals. In short, he'll begin doing what leaders do: Lead.”
    -Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

    OUCH!!!!

    "And the ref takes a point away!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR, LIAR

    or, if you prefer....

    "Yea!!! That's it, Ricky!!! Tell the bitch off!!!"
    -Eddie Murphy, DELERIOUS

    :D

    Michale....
    0153

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exclusive: U.S. Sees Syria Prepping Chemical Weapons for Possible Attack
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/syria-chemical-weapons-3/?ww

    Oh yea.... Leading from behind is SOOO much better and effective, right??

    Obama is doing his best to insure there won't be a US friend in the Middle East at all...

    Michale
    0154

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    "STOP!! Or I'll say STOP again!!"
    -The Obama Administration On Middle East WMD Proliferation

    Michale
    0155

  74. [74] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes I remember 47%-guy absolutely smashing Obama to pieces on his foreign policy and how awful it is (if by 'smashing Obama to pieces' you mean grovelling and practically endorsing Obama based on his foreign policy). At least Republicans were smart enough in that arena to know hated their own foreign policy is, so basically adopt the Obama foreign policy to save face...

    Btw Republicans are proposing $1.4t in cuts. Going over the cliff would result in $1.2t in cuts. LOLOLOL. Amazing.

  75. [75] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Ironically enough, the GOP plan is very specific on cuts in spending and very vague on taxes and revenue.

    Imagine ... protecting tax cuts for the wealthy while going after Medicare and other programs which benefit the majority of people.

    Who would have suspected?

    -David

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    As far as I can tell (early info) Republican proposal is: let's not go over the cliff with $1.2t in cuts, but instead cut $1.4t - except the 'fiscal cliff' includes cuts to the military and we'd rather cut more from programs that help veterans/the elderly/the poor instead...

    Well at least they're making it easy. I stand by my prediction that you will go over the cliff, but early in the New Year tax cuts will be agreed for the 98%.

  77. [77] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "Unfortunately, the White House responded with their ‘La-La-Land’ offer that couldn't pass the House or Senate and was basically the president’s budget from last February." - John Boehner, the gift that keeps on giving

    Mitch McConnell too :)

    -David

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Imagine ... protecting tax cuts for the wealthy while going after Medicare and other programs which benefit the majority of people.

    Who would have suspected?

    Funny...

    When Democrats offer something ridiculous to appease their base, ya'all are on board with it..

    When Republicans offer something ridiculous to appease THEIR base, ya'all ridicule it..

    Who would have suspected???...

    Oh wait...

    *ME* :D

    It's tough being right most of the time.. :D

    Michale.....
    0156

  79. [79] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As far as I can tell (early info) Republican proposal is: let's not go over the cliff with $1.2t in cuts, but instead cut $1.4t - except the 'fiscal cliff' includes cuts to the military and we'd rather cut more from programs that help veterans/the elderly/the poor instead.

    In other words, Republicans took all the compromise out of the automatic changes set to happen.

    This makes it easy then. The fiscal cliff is the better compromise.

    Then come back in January and propose tax cuts for 98% of people.

    -David

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still no comment on how high gas prices screw over the poor and middle class???

    What a shock! :D

    Michale
    0157

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    This makes it easy then. The fiscal cliff is the better compromise.

    So, rather than NOT being able to stick it to the rich, you would rather taxes go up on the poor and middle class..

    Wasn't it just yesterday that ya'all were castigating the GOP for the *exact* same thing!??

    So, TODAY, going over the fiscal cliff is acceptable..

    Yesterday it wasn't..

    Gotcha ;^)

    Michale
    0158

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/12/03/cbs-cheesecake-factory-ceo-warns-obamacare-will-be-very-costly

    And another example of how Obama and the Democrats are screwing over the poor and middle class..

    What??

    Dems are going to FORCE businesses to give employees FULL TIME jobs with complete benefits??

    Yea, no 1984 here, right??? :^/

    Michale
    0159

  83. [83] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CEOs warn that CEOs don't like any plan that isn't tailored to CEOs.

    I don't think CEOs get it yet.

    People are tired of hearing them whine for more tax cuts and lower wages and less benefits for their employees.

    The tone deafness of it all is simply amazing.

    -David

  84. [84] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Still no comment on how high gas prices screw over the poor and middle class???

    What is there to comment on? Of course high gas prices are bad. But what on earth does the price of a traded commodity have to do with anything?

    So, rather than NOT being able to stick it to the rich, you would rather taxes go up on the poor and middle class..

    Huh who is saying this? I am pretty sure everyone is agreed that taxes should not go up on the middle class.

    Sorry, I am wrong. Republicans want the payroll tax to go up in their package.

    I'll rephrase: Everyone, except for Republicans, is agreed that taxes should not go up on the middle class. Everyone, including Republicans, agrees that federal income taxes should not go up on the middle class. I believe Obama said he'd sign the law right now, his pen was ready...

    The budget discussions are boring me now. The Republican offer today is so silly that it is pretty clear to be now that Obama will get his increase on taxes on the top 2% and the $1.2t in spending cuts already passed will come into play. Why on earth would the Democrats agree with the Republicans to INCREASE the cuts more lol??

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    People are tired of hearing them whine for more tax cuts and lower wages and less benefits for their employees.

    No.. Ya'all don't get it..

    Business people have to do what's right for their businesses first and foremost..

    The welfare of the employees are of secondary concern..

    That's the simple fact that ya'all simply don't (or, more likely WON'T) understand..

    And if businesses have to lay off workers and cut workers hours to survive then that's what they'll do...

    And the blame for this action lies DIRECTLY at the feet of Obama and The Democrats and the people who voted for them.

    Michale
    0160

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is there to comment on? Of course high gas prices are bad. But what on earth does the price of a traded commodity have to do with anything?

    So, you don't think the President is responsible for the high gas prices??

    That's kinda strange.. Because back when Bush was President, the Left (INCLUDING every Weigantian here) said that the POTUS was COMPLETELY responsible for the high gas prices..

    Once again, proving beyond ANY doubt that it's the all important '-D' after the name that is the ONLY consideration...

    Michale
    0161

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huh who is saying this? I am pretty sure everyone is agreed that taxes should not go up on the middle class.

    Yea, TODAY...

    A day or so ago, people here were slamming the GOP for even going off the fiscal cliff..

    Now that the GOP has offered THEIR plan, NOW everyone here is saying, the fiscal cliff ain't so bad...

    So, NOW the story is screw the poor and middle class.. If ya'all can't stick it to the rich, then ya'all are going to make sure the poor and the middle class suffer..

    Remind me again how that is any different than what you accuse the Republicans of doing??

    Michale...
    0162

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why on earth would the Democrats agree with the Republicans to INCREASE the cuts more lol??

    Because it's called COMPROMISE..

    Something that's a holy grail around here when the Democrats are down..

    But it's a dirty word when the Democrats are up..

    Michale
    0165

  89. [89] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because back when Bush was President, the Left (INCLUDING every Weigantian here) said that the POTUS was COMPLETELY responsible for the high gas prices.

    No. We didn't.

    Because it's called COMPROMISE.

    The trouble Michale is that there already is a compromise. It's called the fiscal cliff. And in this compromise both sides lose something. There's cuts to the military. And cuts to Medicare. Basically, cuts across the board. And revenue increases.

    In the latest Republican proposal, there is no compromise. There are no tax increases on the wealthy. Any revenue claimed is merely the Romney plan of closing vague unspecified loopholes. Any guesses as to which loopholes? My guess is middle class loopholes, not wealthy loopholes. And all the cuts are to programs Republicans despise - Medicare and social security.

    Given the choice between an actual compromise and the Republican plan, I'd take the actual compromise. It's really quite simple.

    -David

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    No. We didn't.

    Uh.... Yes ya'all did...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2006/08/30/good-democratic-campaign-tactics-bush-and-gas-prices/

    No one spoke out against it..

    "Silence gives assent"

    In the latest Republican proposal, there is no compromise.

    There is as much compromise in the Republican proposal as there is in the Democrat proposal..

    This is undeniably fact..

    Given the choice between an actual compromise and the Republican plan, I'd take the actual compromise.

    So, you advocate the fiscal cliff..

    But a couple days ago, you were slamming the Republicans for saying the EXACT same thing. That the fiscal cliff is preferable to a bad proposal..

    NOW you are agreeing with the GOP..

    That the fiscal cliff is better than a bad proposal..

    Well, at least you and the Republicans are on common ground. :D

    Michale..
    0167

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Well, at least you and the Republicans are on common ground. :D

    There IS a silver lining..

    Now, I can't accuse you of never agreeing with Republicans.. :D hehehehehehe

    Michale.....
    0168

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting thing about that cw.com BUSH link...

    "Our national debt is up three trillion dollars under George W. Bush."

    So, a high national debt is indicative of a bad President??

    How much more is our national debt under Obama??

    :D

    Once again, hoisted by your own Picard... :D

    Michale.....
    0169

  93. [93] 
    akadjian wrote:

    No one spoke out against it.

    Ummm. In 2006, I don't know as most of us were even here. I know I started commenting in 2007.

    And your silence gives assent creed goes against your innocent until proven guilty creed. So I'm not even sure you know what you believe any more.

    Business people have to do what's right for their businesses first and foremost. The welfare of the employees are of secondary concern.

    BTW- Thank you for the excellent argument against "trickle down" theory. Basically, you are echoing what we've said all along. There is no guarantee that if you deregulate and give tax cuts to businesses that they will create jobs.

    The only thing that leads to job creation is increased demand in the business.

    -David

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57556704-38/cops-to-congress-we-need-logs-of-americans-text-messages/

    Where is Code Pink??

    Where is MoveOn??

    Where are the legions of Lefties screaming "POLICE STATE!!!"???

    Oh yea, that's right. They are at home praying to their "lord and savior" President Obama...

    If the Left wasn't so damn hypocritical, I would probably like them as much as I like Republicans..

    Granted, not at all, but at least they would be evenly placed on my shit-list..

    Michale
    0170

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ummm. In 2006, I don't know as most of us were even here. I know I started commenting in 2007.

    Which doesn't change the fact that WEIGANTIANS did not disagree with the assertion that the POTUS is to blame for high gas prices...

    But, apparently, this blame only applies to the POTUSes (POTUSii?? POTUSIUM??? A Murder Of POTUSES??? :D ) that have the '-R' after their name..

    BTW- Thank you for the excellent argument against "trickle down" theory. Basically, you are echoing what we've said all along. There is no guarantee that if you deregulate and give tax cuts to businesses that they will create jobs.

    Of course there is no GUARANTEE.. NO ONE has ever claimed otherwise. Although a VERY wise person DID say that "A rising tide lifts all boats"...

    SO, you are correct. There is no guarantee..

    But the chances are a LOT BETTER than taxing and regulating businesses to death..

    The story is told, retold and told again DAILY in the media. Businesses saying they will have to cut hours and fire employees, ALL because of the Democrats and their tax tax tax binge...

    Michale
    0172

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only thing that leads to job creation is increased demand in the business.

    And one of the top things to KILL demand is by forcing businesses to fire employees and cut their hours and then the poor and middle class won't have any disposable income in which to create demand..

    Even an economic moron (such as myself) can see that making the price of business HIGHER for businesses will depress employment and depress purchases which will, in turn, lead to a decrease in demand..

    Michale
    0173

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

    Anyone disagree with this???

    Michale
    0174

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, apparently, this blame only applies to the POTUSes (POTUSii?? POTUSIUM??? A Murder Of POTUSES??? :D ) that have the '-R' after their name..

    I think I just saw some ears perk up at the NSA... :D

    Hi Big Sis... :D

    hehehehehehehehe

    Michale
    0175

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Worst Dem BoneHead statement of the week..

    "You know, with this Republican, with the way politics of Washington are today, there'd still be slavery."
    -Obama Aide

    Michale
    0176

  100. [100] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Although a VERY wise person DID say that "A rising tide lifts all boats".

    He said this before all the data indicated otherwise.

    The data ... yunno that stuff people like Nate Silver use ... not any Republican or Democrat talking head ... but the data ... shows that it's only lifted the boats of a very few.

    -David

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, JFK was wrong???

    He said this before all the data indicated otherwise.

    You mean, all the cherry-picked data...

    While you could make an argument that the GOP way doesn't work, it's clear as the nose on your face that the Dem way makes things much much worse...

    Howz that national debt these days??

    Oh wait. Let me guess.. It's Bush's fault, right??

    :^/

    Michale
    0177

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting note on the 2014 Senate races..

    EVERY Republican incumbent is in a safe seat, either by being the people's choice or not up for re-election..

    It's going to be a tough slough for Democrats to keep the Senate...

    Michale....
    0178

  103. [103] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You mean, all the cherry-picked data.

    All the easily confirmed data ...

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526704_496799363687338_1432491620_n.jpg

    It's Bush's fault, right?

    And the problem isn't Bush or Obama or a party. The problem is a belief in trickle down theory. That's what needs to change.

    Which of course is why you keep going back to party fights ... because you know what we're saying is true ... you just don't like it.

    -David

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    because you know what we're saying is true ...

    In YOUR opinion...

    But here's the thing..

    There is absolutely NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that the Dem way is better..

    There is, however, PLENTY of Factual Evidence that the Dem way makes things worse.. MUCH worse..

    So, who do I believe??

    Ya'all???

    Or my own eyes???

    Michale
    0179

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    As an aside to CW...

    My apologies.. I don't mean to put you on the spot by bringing up your commentaries from 2006-2007..

    Personally, I happen to completely agree with you..

    The POTUS *IS* responsible for high gas prices.

    The POTUS *IS* responsible for high national debt..

    But the difference between me and all the other rank and file Weigantians is that I believe that, regardless of whether there is a '-D' or an '-R' after the President's name.

    Michale
    0180

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526704_496799363687338_1432491620_n.jpg

    That's like taking a picture of ONE MOLECULE and be able to say exactly what the entire ocean is like.

    Like I said.. Cherry picked data...

    How about show us a graph of the gas prices??
    pre.cloudfront.goodinc.com/posts/full_1304100442gas_prices_chart.jpg

    Or maybe show a graph of Median Family Income??
    blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2011/10/hhi.jpg

    See?? I can PROVE that the Democrats way is terrible, just by doing what you do..

    Cherry pick the data that "proves" my point..

    It's not evidence-based opinions..

    It's opinion-based evidence..

    Michale
    0181

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a funny quote I ran across... :D

    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.

    "It's funny because it's true" :D

    Michale
    0182

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's another graph...

    http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/GovernmentEmployment.jpg

    Goods producing workers are on a steep decline under Obama...

    Government employees have sky-rocketed...

    Stats and graphs are like polls. You can find many to "prove" any point you want to make...

    I have given you THREE graphs that "prove" that Democrats are the worst thing since bubonic plague...

    But that doesn't mean it's fact...

    Michale
    0183

  109. [109] 
    dsws wrote:

    That graph stops at 09. Government employment has fallen from about 9.6% of the population when Obama took office, to about 9.0% now.
    http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/08/03-jobs-greenstone-looney

  110. [110] 
    dsws wrote:

    Employment by the federal government has increased, though. The declines are at the state and municipal level. The federal government can borrow more during recessions and start paying it off when Democrats have been in office long enough for the economy to be doing well, whereas states have to budget year-by-year.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/11/paul-krugman/paul-krugman-says-government-jobs-have-fallen-half/

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    start paying it off when Democrats have been in office long enough for the economy to be doing well,

    Yea, but many of us won't likely be around until the end of time... :D

    Michale
    0185

  112. [112] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Or maybe show a graph of Median Family Income?

    You know the interesting thing, Michale.

    All of your evidence supports the theory that "trickle down" economics is part of the problem.

    - Median income going down.
    - Less goods being produced here.

    All this shows is that supply side economics and globalization are still impacting our country. These are the real problems.

    My issue with Bush was never Bush himself, but rather that his policy ideas were terrible (war, war, tax cuts for the wealthy, and deregulation). The same things I'm arguing against now.

    What do you think is behind all of the data you've shown, Michale?

    I mean, other than Obama. What is causing the economic destruction of the middle class?

    -David

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of your evidence supports the theory that "trickle down" economics is part of the problem.

    Yet, these are the results of the last 4 years of Obama and the Democrats..

    What do you think is behind all of the data you've shown, Michale?

    The totally ridiculous idea that one can dig out of a financial hole by spending MORE money and digging deeper and deeper IN the hole..

    Democrats ideas DON'T work.. PERIOD...

    There is NO EVIDENCE that Dems ideas will work and TONS of evidence that they DON'T work..

    That's what the data says to any rational objective person..

    Michale
    0186

  114. [114] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yet, these are the results of the last 4 years of Obama and the Democrats.

    These things have been going on much longer than the last 4 years.

    Supply side economics and globalization have been trends since at least the 80s. Likely before then.

    Democrats ideas DON'T work.. PERIOD...

    Yeah ... we get it. Back to your regularly scheduled program. Democrats bad. Republicans good. *grunt, grunt*

    -David

  115. [115] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- Thanks, michty, if you're still out there!

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/04/1166964/-How-to-Judge-Any-Fiscal-Cliff-Deal

    -David

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats bad. Republicans good. *grunt, grunt*

    No...

    As usual, you twist my argument to suit your political bias..

    Your argument: Democrats good. Republicans bad..

    *MY* argument: Democrats bad. Republicans bad..

    I have tons of factual evidence to support my argument..

    You do not..

    It's really THAT simple...

    Michale
    0187

  117. [117] 
    akadjian wrote:

    *MY* argument: Democrats bad. Republicans bad.

    Hahahahahah. Well, on that I'd somewhat agree. Both play politics.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't help much when it comes to understanding the 'fiscal cliff' issue.

    -David

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hahahahahah. Well, on that I'd somewhat agree. Both play politics.

    Yep.. Both play politics to serve their own agenda..

    The problem is that you think that the Democrats' agenda is in the bests interests of the American People..

    Whereas, the reality is that the Democrats' agenda is in the best interests of the Democratic Party..

    But hell.. A little common ground is better than no common ground at all.. :D

    Michale....
    0188

  119. [119] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The problem is that you think that the Democrats' agenda is in the bests interests of the American People.

    Sure. Just as you believe the Republican agenda is in the best interests of the American people.

    I'm not sure what your point is.

    If Republicans believed in something other than trickle down economics and deregulation, maybe I'd believe in their plan. But we've seen 30 years of this. And the only party who is moving away from these policies is the Democrats.

    -David

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure. Just as you believe the Republican agenda is in the best interests of the American people.

    Never said that either..

    I'm not sure what your point is.

    My point has been the same as it always has been. Consistently..

    Democrats are no better than Republicans when it comes to the interests of the American people..

    . And the only party who is moving away from these policies is the Democrats.

    Yes. And the policies that Democrats are moving towards are 20 times worse...

    So, if it's a choice between a crappy plan (GOP) and a really REALLY REALLY crappy plan (DEM), I am going with the lesser of two evils..

    "During the cold war, the Russians could always be counted on to do whatever is in their best interests"
    -Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE

    You try and make the Democrats out to be the heros of the middle class and the poor..

    Yet, as I have proven time and time again, it's the middle class and the poor that are suffering most under Democrats...

    This is undeniably fact..

    Michale
    0189

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why is it that ya'all think it's a SMART idea to spend and spend and spend... Spending money this country simply DOES NOT have!??

    On what PLANET in the entire multi-verse would THAT be considered a GOOD IDEA!???

    Michale
    0190

  122. [122] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Democrats are no better than Republicans when it comes to the interests of the American people.

    This doesn't exactly fit with ...

    if it's a choice between a crappy plan (GOP) and a really REALLY REALLY crappy plan (DEM), I am going with the lesser of two evils.

    Clearly ... you view one as better than the other. I'm not sure why this is so hard to admit.

    This is undeniably fact.

    Have you ever noticed how much you have to tell us that your "facts" are "facts"? Why is that?

    Why is it that ya'all think it's a SMART idea to spend?

    In a recession, if you hope to grow your way out of recession, you have to spend. It's that simple.

    The time to pay down the deficit would be when times are good.

    This is why I believe Republicans have their priorities backwards.

    Actually, what I really believe is that Republicans love deficits. The reason being is that they hate government. At least government by and for the people. And the way they hope to accomplish the destruction of government is by driving up the debt and using this as an excuse to cut any programs they don't like.

    This is exactly the scenario playing out now. There was a surplus under Clinton. Bush killed it and drove up the deficit. Now Republicans want to cut. But what do they want to cut? Only programs they hate.

    BTW- This is exactly the reason why going over the fiscal cliff is a good idea unless Republicans wish to compromise. At least the fiscal cliff is a compromise. The current Boehner plan has zero compromise in it.

    -David

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clearly ... you view one as better than the other. I'm not sure why this is so hard to admit.

    No... I view one as less crappy than the other..

    YOU view one as better then the other.. Despite absolutely NO EVIDENCE to indicate this..

    In a recession, if you hope to grow your way out of recession, you have to spend. It's that simple.

    Yea, and it's working out SOOO good, isn't it??

    This is exactly the reason why going over the fiscal cliff is a good idea unless Republicans wish to compromise.

    Yet, it WASN'T a good idea when DEMOCRATS didn't want to compromise..

    Again, the '-D' is the ONLY consideration..

    Michale
    0191

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does ANYONE here *honestly* believe that 1.6 TRILLION dollars in specific and immediate taxes and a QUARTER of that in vague and undetermined spending cuts to be decided at a later date is a *COMPROMISE*???

    If ya do, then I REALLY want to sell ya'all some swampland in FL... :D

    Michale
    0192

  125. [125] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Does ANYONE here *honestly* believe that 1.6 TRILLION dollars in specific and immediate taxes and a QUARTER of that in vague and undetermined spending cuts to be decided at a later date is a *COMPROMISE*???

    of course not, it's an opening bid. O is negotiating from a position of strength instead of weakness. there are certainly cuts to be made, but he's going to make the republicans drag it out of him, rather than assuming they'd accept a reasonable first offer, as he did in his first term. he's being unreasonable because reason didn't get him anywhere.

  126. [126] 
    akadjian wrote:

    No... I view one as less crappy than the other.

    If one is less crappy, then one, by definition is better.

    Yea, and it's working out SOOO good, isn't it?

    It is working. Unemployment is going down. The stock market is back to where it was before the recession. Consumer spending is up. And the economy is growing.

    Yet, it WASN'T a good idea when DEMOCRATS didn't want to compromise.

    Your double negative means what you are saying is that it was a good idea when Democrats wanted to compromise.

    It is a good idea. I agree.

    There is already a compromise in place. One that both sides have agreed to.

    Why would either side want to change this unless it improved their position?

    I do believe, however, that it may happen because Republicans have much more to gain from avoiding the fiscal cliff. Despite all their bluster, I don't think they want this to happen.

    -David

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    If one is less crappy, then one, by definition is better.

    Illogical..

    It's like saying it's OK to lose 2 arms, because you COULD have lost 2 arms and 2 legs..

    It is working. Unemployment is going down. The stock market is back to where it was before the recession. Consumer spending is up. And the economy is growing.

    Unemployment is higher today than when Obama took office..

    The economy is growing in SPITE of the Democrat's efforts.

    Not because of them.

    I do believe, however, that it may happen because Republicans have much more to gain from avoiding the fiscal cliff. Despite all their bluster, I don't think they want this to happen.

    And, obviously, the Democrats do..

    Michale
    0193

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    of course not, it's an opening bid. O is negotiating from a position of strength instead of weakness. there are certainly cuts to be made, but he's going to make the republicans drag it out of him, rather than assuming they'd accept a reasonable first offer, as he did in his first term. he's being unreasonable because reason didn't get him anywhere.

    I disagree...

    "Jan! We're trying to AVOID going to court! You just guaranteed that we ARE going to court!"
    -William H Macy, A CIVIL ACTION

    Democrats made a ridiculous offer that they KNOW the GOP couldn't accept, thereby guaranteeing that this country would go over the fiscal cliff..

    Democrats are calculating that the American people will blame the GOP..

    They may be right...

    But what if they're wrong??

    Personally, I think the Dems are seeing too much into their win. They think they have a mandate from the people.

    The Democrats see what they want to see..

    And it will be their undoing..

    Michale
    0194

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    he's being unreasonable because reason didn't get him anywhere.

    Why not try competence??

    Competence ALWAYS seems to get people somewhere..

    Michale
    0195

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats have made it clear from the start, with their MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY attitude, that they have every intention of pushing this country over the fiscal cliff..

    The funny thing is, before ya'all REALIZED that, ya'all were accusing the GOP of exactly that..

    But, then when ya'all realized what the GOP planned...???

    It was complete 180 city!!!

    I hope ya'all didn't hurt yerselves with whiplash or sumthin' :D

    Michale
    0198

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats have made it clear from the start, with their MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY attitude, that they have every intention of pushing this country over the fiscal cliff..

    Which simply proves once again what I have been saying..

    Democrats care more for the Democrat Agenda than they do for the welfare of this country and it's citizens...

    And that's just sad.... Plain and simple..

    Michale
    0199

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Everyone in US under virtual surveillance' - NSA whistleblower
    http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/

    Once again, I have to ask..

    Where is Code Pink??

    Where is MoveOn???

    Where are the Weigantians!???

    I am honestly flabbergasted that (relatively speaking) *NO ONE* from the Left says "boo" about this!!

    Michale
    0201

  133. [133] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Does ANYONE here *honestly* believe that 1.6 TRILLION dollars in specific and immediate taxes and a QUARTER of that in vague and undetermined spending cuts to be decided at a later date is a *COMPROMISE*?

    Does anyone believe that 1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Social Security (with no cuts to the military) and 800 billion in supposed vague loophole closures (unknown, TBD) and no tax increases on the wealthy is a *COMPROMISE*?

    Please ...

    The fiscal cliff is a much better compromise. It has cuts to programs both sides don't like. It has revenue increases that Republicans and Democrats agreed to. It has pain for everyone.

    It is the compromise.

    Unless the two sides can come up with something better that both like.

    I think what really gets your goat, Michale, is that Obama understands this and, as Joshua mentions, is negotiating from a position of strength. Rather than in the past using the compromise as the starting point.

    Because we all know that no matter what the proposal, Republicans are going to scream that it's not extreme enough.

    Democrats care more for the Democrat Agenda than they do for the welfare of this country and it's citizens.

    Puh-leez ... this coming from the party whose candidate for President, the party standard bearer, said he thinks 47% of the country is moochers and deadbeats.

    Why should we have a government that caters solely to business when you yourself stated business has no interest in our country? By definition, business cares about the bottom line. And this is ok. But the bottom line of businesses should not be the sole concern of a government by and for the people.

    -David

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does anyone believe that 1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Social Security (with no cuts to the military) and 800 billion in supposed vague loophole closures (unknown, TBD) and no tax increases on the wealthy is a *COMPROMISE*?

    The GOP plan is nearly identical to the Simpson-Bowles Commission plan that OBAMA set up...

    Regardless, why is it that you think the DEM plan is fair, but the GOP plan is not??

    They both are mirror images of each other..

    The fiscal cliff is a much better compromise.

    It wasn't a few days ago...

    Puh-leez ... this coming from the party whose candidate for President, the party standard bearer, said he thinks 47% of the country is moochers and deadbeats.

    And the standard bearer for YOUR party is a guy who said that Americans cling to guns and religion..

    The standard bearer for YOUR party is a guy who said that GOVERNMENT built small business, not Americans..

    The standard bearer for YOUR party is a guy who said that raising the debt limit is "unpatriotic"..

    The standard bearer for YOUR party is a guy who made a private deal with the Russians!!

    Do you REALLY wanna go shot for shot for out of context, private quotes??

    I don't think you do... :D

    But the bottom line of businesses should not be the sole concern of a government by and for the people.

    And THAT is why we are having record high unemployment for years.

    THAT is why our economy is in the toilet..

    THAT is why Democrats are pushing this country over a cliff and into another recession..

    Because Obama & Democrats feel that government is the savior of the economy, NOT small businesses...

    Everything Obama & Democrats have done have HURT the middle class..

    Do you think it's going to be the rich who suffers most in another recession??

    No.. It will be the middle class..

    And Democrats are doing their damnest to make sure that it happens..

    Michale
    0202

  135. [135] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Regardless, why is it that you think the DEM plan is fair, but the GOP plan is not?

    You're putting words in my mouth. Again, what I stated was the plan the GOP put forth is not a compromise. I didn't make any comments about either plan being fair.

    I also argued that the "fiscal cliff" is a better compromise for Democrats than anything the GOP has offered so far.

    But I'm sure this won't stop you from putting more words in my mouth. It never has before.

    The GOP plan is nearly identical to the Simpson-Bowles Commission plan that OBAMA set up.

    Actually, it's not. Simpson-Bowles proposed ...

    1. Ending tax breaks for those making more than $250k (hmm, why does that sound familiar?)
    2. Simpson-Bowles includes almost as many revenue increases as cuts. The ratio is nearly 1:1
    3. Congress and Obama have already passed 70% of the cuts recommended by Simpson-Bowles.
    4. Simpson-Bowles recommended cuts to the military.

    So I'm not sure which Simpson-Bowles proposal you're referring to. One on another planet likely.

    BTW- Much of this can be found in this excellent article on Simpson Bowles

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/04/11-shocking-true-facts-about-simpson-bowles/

    Bowles himself actually spoke out against the GOP proposal.

    Do you REALLY wanna go shot for shot for out of context, private quotes?

    I suppose if everything you just said was taken out of context (which I'd agree with), I guess I can ignore it.

    Unfortunately, Romney's private conversations are his context. Backroom deals with big business. This is one of the few places where Romney laid out his agenda- more supply side economics and deregulation designed to benefit big business. All of this in the hope that it would "trickle down".

    Sound familiar?

    -David

    BTW- 202 ... well done!

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're putting words in my mouth. Again, what I stated was the plan the GOP put forth is not a compromise. I didn't make any comments about either plan being fair.

    OK So you would agree that the GOP plan is as much a compromise as the DEM plan is..

    Bowles himself actually spoke out against the GOP proposal.

    Of course he did. He's a Democrat...

    Backroom deals with big business.

    Come on! That's how Democrats and Obama have governed since they got elected. Back Room smoke filled rooms..

    You can't castigate Backroom deals from the GOP and give the DEM's backroom deals a pass..

    It's against the rules... :D

    BTW- 202 ... well done!

    Couldn't have done it without ya, my friend! :D

    Michale
    0203

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/270497-opinion-with-debt-talks-foundering-simpson-bowles-suddenly-back-in-vogue

    You see, the problem is Democrats would rather go over the cliff than accept spending cuts..

    Republicans have stated they would accept higher taxes on higher incomes..

    So, who is not willing to compromise??

    Michale
    0204

  138. [138] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, who is not willing to compromise?

    The fiscal is a compromise. Agreed to by both parties. So it can be done.

    I guess it remains to be seen if it can be done in another way.

    -David

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fiscal is a compromise. Agreed to by both parties. So it can be done.

    So, you agree with my conclusion that Democrats would rather push this country over the fiscal cliff rather than accept spending cuts..

    Michale
    0205

  140. [140] 
    akadjian wrote:

    you agree with my conclusion that Democrats would rather push this country over the fiscal cliff rather than accept spending cuts.

    No, Mr "word in mouth" putter ...

    But I realize this is how you will try to spin it as part of your hardball technique to get 100% of what you want.

    What are Republicans willing to offer to avoid the impending death and destruction of driving off the fiscal cliff? (hyperbole, hyperbole ... :) )

    Where's the military cuts? Where's the tax increases from Bowles-Simpson?

    And ... why aren't you happy with the compromise Congress agreed to?

    -David

  141. [141] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    So, you don't think the President is responsible for the high gas prices??

    That's kinda strange.. Because back when Bush was President, the Left (INCLUDING every Weigantian here) said that the POTUS was COMPLETELY responsible for the high gas prices

    I know you like to quote this mythical left creature, but no in no way whatsoever is the President of the UNITED STATES responsible for the WORLDWIDE price of oil/gas (which peaked in June 2008 just so we're clear). OPEC or those willing to try and make money by speculating on oil prices and oil futures are much more to blame.

    Oh and the fact that oil is a finite resource and will eventually run out, so basic supply and demand dictates that as a resource becomes more scarce it's price increases...

    BTW- Thanks, michty, if you're still out there!

    Ha! Thanks for the name drop! Not been around as I got a little bored with all the discussions and bickering over who is not compromising and who isn't.

    My view is that you can yammer on for hours about who is compromising or not but the absolute 100% FACT is that the vast majority of the current US deficit was caused by 3 things (for reference, see the video/Wikipedia entry I posted somewhere in this thread):

    (1) Tax rates and revenue being too low (Bush tax cuts)
    (2) Massive amounts of military spending, including (but not just) 2 wars
    (3) The economy performing worse than expected

    The problem is that Republicans want to pretend that (1) and (2) don't exist and that somehow, despite almost no changes to the system or rules in place in the last 10 years, 'entitlement spending' or healthcare costs are magically to blame for the deficit. The Republicans solution to (3) is, as it always has been, 'trickle down' - a failed policy which the people of the USA have made it clear they will not back anymore (and also adds to the deficit because of (1)).

    So in a sense there is NOTHING TO COMPROMISE ON as far as I'm concerned. Compromising and cutting entitlement benefits to 'fix' the deficit would be like saying 'well John has an alcohol problem, so let's cut his cigarettes to 1 pack a day, let him drink all the booze he wants that will probably cure him'. Why on earth would you compromise when you know that ALCOHOL, not cigarettes, is John's problem?

    So Democrats have an easy choice. They can fix (1) by going over the cliff and then pass a bill keeping tax rates low (to not make (3) any worse) on 98% of people, whilst also taking a small step to fix (2) because the fiscal cliff actually includes military cuts. In a sense this is 'compromising' since the fiscal cliff package also contains unnecessary 'entitlement' spending cuts.

    So there is literally nothing to debate. Why on earth would Democrats even bother to consider a Republican offer that cuts more than going over the cliff would and basically takes John's cigarettes away, when the package in place already takes some of his booze off him to fix his real problem...

  142. [142] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why on earth would Democrats even bother to consider a Republican offer that cuts more than going over the cliff would and basically takes John's cigarettes away, when the package in place already takes some of his booze off him to fix his real problem...

    Hahahahahah ... I keep asking myself the same thing as well. But Dems are fickle creatures who also are under pressure from lobbyists ... so you never know.

    The thing I think most people don't get is that the cliff is the compromise!

    And some days it seems like the only thing Reps/Dems have agreed on for the past 2 years.

    -David

  143. [143] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The thing I think most people don't get is that the cliff is the compromise!

    Yeh if the compromise is 'cliff without the tax rises on 98% of Americans' then that's actually a pretty big compromise for Democrats - they are giving up the payroll tax increase alongside a bunch of unnecessary cuts on 'entitlement spending' - whilst Republicans are giving up tax cuts on the top 2% and military spending cuts.

    As much as I think entitlement spending cuts are stupid and unnecessary, I think that's a necessary compromise considering Republicans are so hell bent on making life more miserable for poor/Veteran/unemployed/disabled Americans - and when one side is so hell bent on this and controls 1/3 of Congress you don't really have much choice...

    The only thing missing from this is the debt ceiling increase - which is something that shouldn't have to be 'negotiated' - but hey, it's Republicans we're dealing with here and if they have to destroy the economic recovery and US credit rating to get their own way then they are generally prepared to... That is perhaps the most interesting element of the negotiations.

  144. [144] 
    michty6 wrote:

    PS. It's pretty hilarious that the payroll tax rise is a Democrat compromise not a Republican one. But then it makes sense since this tax doesn't affect the wealthy, due to the cap, so Republicans don't give a shit about it - just more crap to happily heap on poor Americans as far as they're concerned...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how ya'alls story changed..

    Before, ya'alls story was that the GOP would rather push this country off the fiscal cliff rather than "compromise"..

    NOW that the GOP has offered a plan that is the mirror image of the DEM plan (both equally "unfair" to the other Party's agenda)....

    NOW all of the sudden, the fiscal cliff *IS* the compromise...

    I wish ya'all would get your stories straight....

    Michale
    0206

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, NOW your position is that, since Democrats didn't accept the GOP plan they are, in fact, "compromising" by forcing this country over a fiscal cliff and into a recession, since THAT is, according to you, "the compromise"....

    Of course, the CONVERSE of that must ALSO be true.

    Towhit, since Republicans didn't accept the DEM plan they (Republicans) are, in fact, "compromising" by forcing this country over the fiscal cliff and into a recession, since THAT is, according to you, "the compromise....

    DO you see how utterly untenable your position is??

    Every claim of GOP nefariousness and DEM virtue you make is an equal mirror claim of DEM nefariousness and GOP virtue..

    It simply cannot be any other way...

    Michale
    0207

  147. [147] 
    michty6 wrote:

    From day 1 I said going over the cliff (with a continuation of the 98% tax cuts) than agreeing to a laughable compromise was a better option.

    All that changed was that the GOP put out a SUPER LAUGHABLE LOLOLOLOL offer and thus solidified this.

  148. [148] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Here's an lovely analogy for you Michale, using the same one I did before:

    Jimmy has an alcohol problem. He spends far too much money on alcohol. Doing this has led to him becoming indebted. Also his boss, Mr Bush, cut his pay a few years back - not helping his debt situation. Furthermore, as the economy suffered, he didn't get his usual pay rises - again worsening the debt situation. On a side note, Jimmy likes to go to the library for 5 hours and read a book.

    A while ago, Democrats and Republicans got together and proposed a plan called the 'fiscal cliff'. On enactment, Jimmy's revenue will go up - but part of this increase will come from taking money from really poor people to give to Jimmy, as well as part from Mr Burns. Furthermore, Jimmy's alcohol allowance will be cut (although only by a small amount, as Republicans like it that Jimmy wastes unnecessary money on alcohol). Finally, Jimmy will be limited to only 2.5 hours at the library as this is an 'entitlement' which one side feels needs cutting.

    Democrats put forward a compromise which stated that Jimmy's pay will go up - but only by the part funded by Mr Burns, none of it will be funded by poor people. In addition, Jimmy will be allowed his 5 hours at the library - perhaps being decreased to 4.5 hours over time. Sadly, they didn't touch the alcohol allowance Jimmy has, as this was their compromise to the other side.

    Republicans put forward a compromise. In it Jimmy's pay will go up - although not by as much as Democrats and they won't say who will pay for this, so it could be Mr Burns or poor people. Jimmy's alcohol allowance will remain untouched (in fact, during the election they advocated INCREASING Jimmy's alcohol allowance, which is their party policy). In fact, the blame all of Jimmy's problems on the 5 hours he spends at the library - such 'entitlement' will be cut to 0.5 hours a week.

    So Jimmy has the option of taking the plan originally passed or trying to reach some sort of middle agreement between the 2 other offers.

    To me, Jimmy's solution is pretty simple :)

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    All that changed was that the GOP put out a SUPER LAUGHABLE LOLOLOLOL offer and thus solidified this.

    And the DEMs put out a "SUPER LAUGHABLE LOLOLOLOL" offer, thereby insuring that they push this country over a fiscal cliff..

    Ever see A CIVIL ACTION??

    Michale.....
    0209

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, since according to ya'all, the fiscal cliff/recession *IS* the "compromise" then Republicans are as much "compromising" as the Democrats are..

    Frankly, NEITHER Party is compromising at all to avoid a new recession.

    But if you have to spin it that way to make it thru the day, far be it from me to destroy your delusions with logic... :D

    Michale
    0210

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20264712/detroit-councilwoman-to-obama-we-supported-you-now-support-us

    Yea..... No Quid Pro Quo in Obama's win, right???

    What is so unbelievable is that ya'all actually BELIEVE that Obama is not beholden to anyone...

    The level of delusion is fascinating..

    Michale
    0211

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's also unbelievable is that the Dem councilwoman is so blatant about it...

    No subtly there....

    Michale
    0212

  153. [153] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    You have pretty much demonstrated why discussing this is pointless. It is a discussion between people who know why the deficit was created and people that dont (anyone who mentions the phrase 'entitlement spending' falls into the latter)

    The Republican 'compromise' is laughable BECAUSE IT IS NOT A COMPROMISE. I dont think you'll ever get that. Their proposal isto basically cut MORE than would be cut if America did nothing. The Democrats plan is to cut very little. YOU might not think of this as a compromise but it is.

    Let me put it this way: thr fiscal cliff is bad because he cuts are too heavy and drastic. Democrats said lets make them less drastic. Republicans said lets make them MORE drastic. Using the cliff analogy, Republicans 'compromise' was to MAKE THE CLIFF BIGGER. Thats why the most appropriate response is LOLOLOLOLOL.

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/twitter-white-house-similar-wapo-andrew-sullivan-paul-krugman-nbc-and-chris-cuomo_665075.html

    Yea... NO Obama Media Bias in the MSM, right?? :D

    They're not even trying to HIDE it anymore....

    Michale
    0213

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember those bogus "recess" appointments Obama made back in Jan??

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/5/court-questions-obama-recess-appointments/

    Looks like they're coming back to bite him on the ass.... :D

    Michale
    0215

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/05/comedian-liberal-comics-dont-want-to-make-fun-of-obama-because-they-feel-that-it-will-weaken-him/

    And now the truth comes out... :D

    Not that any rational or objective person ever doubted it...

    Michale
    0216

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Modern Liberalism is a utopian ideology that is predicated on the notion that, since mankind lost paradise when Adam and Eve ate from the apple of knowledge, then mankind can return to paradise if only we’d all just ‘regurgitate the apple’ and give up all knowledge of right and wrong.

    The notion is that, if we can eliminate the quest for what I call ‘the better,’ then there’d be nothing for people to disagree about. If people didn’t disagree about things, then they wouldn’t fight and, if they didn’t fight, then of course they’d never go to war. Peace on Earth — in fact, paradise — can be achieved, they’re convinced, if only they could eliminate the quest for the better.

    This is the environment that is found in kindergarten, where every child’s finger painting is declared ‘beautiful,’ and every child is declared special (but none more special than any other), and where every child gets a cookie, but no child gets two. Modern liberalism is predicated on the notion that, if we could just retard the child’s moral and intellectual growth at a level prior to his having begun to learn about the better, then paradise will reign.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/05/comedian-liberal-comics-dont-want-to-make-fun-of-obama-because-they-feel-that-it-will-weaken-him/#ixzz2EDNdj4N0

    Now that's the BEST explanation of today's Liberals as I have EVER heard....

    It's so dead on balls accurate, it's SCARY!!

    Michale
    0217

  158. [158] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Probably 3 of the dumbest paragraphs I've ever read in my entire life.

  159. [159] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yeh if the compromise is 'cliff without the tax rises on 98% of Americans' then that's actually a pretty big compromise for Democrats

    Agreed. They would have to fight to reinstate the middle class tax cuts. However, this is why there is so much nonsense going on right now. Because the one thing Republicans fear most is looking like they represent the rich.

    They succeed when they are able to muddy the waters and claim to represent something else- like freedom or candy. Which, in all likelihood, is why Michale likes to muddy the waters so much.

    -David

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Probably 3 of the dumbest paragraphs I've ever read in my entire life.

    That validates it for me!!! :D

    Now, if you had some FACTS to validate your opinion, then you might have a point..

    But to attack it so blatantly w/o any facts???

    Well, it seems to me it's hitting uncomfortably close to home, eh? :D

    Michale
    0218

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which, in all likelihood, is why Michale likes to muddy the waters so much.

    Not at all..

    I simply like to bring logic and objectivity to all the partisan BS that permeates around here..

    For example, no one here responds to #146...

    Why is that??? :D

    Michale
    0219

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do ya know how I know that ya'all think Obama is the Messiah???

    Because Obama asked for authority to raise the debt limit SOLELY AND COMPLETELY on his own say-so....

    And NO ONE here said "boo"...

    Michale
    0221

  163. [163] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol I love how you post a bunch of bullshit rhetoric and WE have to provide facts to disprove it. It's like posting a children's fairytale about flying unicorns and asking for facts to disprove it...

    I have replied to [146]. Democrats are compromising:
    - Democrats proposal = No deep cuts, no tax increases for 98%
    - Fiscal cliff = Some deep cuts to programmes both Democrats and Republicans like, tax increases for 100%
    - Republicans proposal = Take the fiscal cliff and build the cuts even HIGHER and DEEPER but only full of cuts to programmes that Democrats like. No promises on taxes.

    Do you see how the middle one actually IS a compromise? You haven't replied to any of my posts because you know the FACTS are against you (as usual)...

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    I DO have to hand it to Democrats though..

    According to the Dem narrative, going over the fiscal cliff was the signal for the End Of Days..

    NOW that Dems know they can't bully the GOP with their fantasy "mandate", NOW the Democrats have changed the narrative...

    With the skill that would make any die-hard Republican blush..

    So, credit where credit is due...

    Democrats have learned to lie and spin and bullshit as good as Republicans...

    Kudos...

    Michale
    0222

  165. [165] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Because Obama asked for authority to raise the debt limit SOLELY AND COMPLETELY on his own say-so....

    LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL AMAZING. Again shows how completely clueless you are on what is going on.

    I'd love to see how this works in practise... Fast forward 50 years down the line: 'Obama just died, how on earth are we going to raise the debt ceiling ever again - we're screwed!'

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Yes.. Democrats are "compromising" by their willingness to go over the fiscal cliff..

    But Republicans are NOT "compromising" by THEIR willingness to go over the fiscal cliff..

    Got it..

    We are at war with Eurasia... We have always been at war with Eurasia....

    Got it.. {wink wink}

    Michale
    0223

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol I love how you post a bunch of bullshit rhetoric and WE have to provide facts to disprove it.

    It it's so much "bullshit" it should to be EASY to disprove..

    But I see the evidence of today's "Modern Liberals" all around us in the here and now...

    The idea drilled into our young children that "everyone is special"... The concept of not rewarding success so as to insure that EVERYONE performs at the same mediocre level..

    The idea that Americans did not build their businesses... Remember "You didn't build that!"???

    The evidence of the "bullshit rhetoric" is all around us..

    Your turn.. Show some evidence that disproves this theory..

    You can't, because none exists..

    Michale
    0224

  168. [168] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes.. Democrats are "compromising" by their willingness to go over the fiscal cliff..

    But Republicans are NOT "compromising" by THEIR willingness to go over the fiscal cliff..

    Nope. Still not getting it. I'll try one more time.

    Democrats = let's not go over the cliff
    Republicans = let's not JUST go over the cliff but cut EVEN MORE cuts than the fiscal cliff package.

    You see how the Republican position is not one of compromise? I'll try one more time to try and get you to understand this with an analogy:

    You're walking along one day when a mugger called 'fiscal cliff' comes along, pulls out a gun and says "Give me $10!" But then a Democrat comes along and says, "tell you what we'll compromise - just give me $2.50". Then a Republican comes along and says "tell you what we'll compromise - just give $12 and your watch"

    Do you see how this offer is NOT A COMPROMISE BY ANY DEFINITION OF THE WORD COMPROMISE lol.

  169. [169] 
    michty6 wrote:

    [RE:167]Show me evidence that flying unicorns don't exist. I see them all around me every day in the fantasy world I live in. But you can't, because no such evidence exists. I see them in my fantasy world and you can't prove I don't.

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats = let's not go over the cliff
    Republicans = let's not JUST go over the cliff but cut EVEN MORE cuts than the fiscal cliff package.

    Yea... It's the REPUBLICANS that are evil and wrong and the DEMOCRATS that are goodness and light..

    Jeezus, could the partisanship be any more blatant...

    Michale
    0224

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    I already gave you evidence that PROVES the "Modern Liberal" exists as described...

    Now, if you don't have ANY factual evidence to disprove it (as usual), then it stands as factual...

    Michale
    0225

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats = let's not go over the cliff

    You are obviously not up on current events there, sunshine..

    It's Democrats that are saying "'ABSOLUTELY' WILLING TO GO OVER 'CLIFF'
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100281263

    Jeeze, could you be any more blatant with the total BS???

    Michale
    0226

  173. [173] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Every claim of GOP nefariousness and DEM virtue you make is an equal mirror claim of DEM nefariousness and GOP virtue.

    I know you are but what am I !!!

    ;)

    -David

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's Democrats that are saying "'ABSOLUTELY' WILLING TO GO OVER 'CLIFF'
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100281263

    Jeeze, could you be any more blatant with the total BS???

    I mean, seriously!!

    At least make a SMALL EFFORT to be grounded in reality, fer chreest's sake!!!

    Michale
    0227

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know you are but what am I !!!

    hehehehehehe

    I know I got ya'all on the run when your comments contradict each other AND the reality... :D

    Michale
    0228

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what's so galling about all this is the simple FACT that none of the taxes the Democrats are proposing will actually HELP anything..

    The ONLY goal is to stick it to the rich..

    But, of course, ONLY the rich who support the Republicans..

    The LEFT rich get kickbacks and quid pro quo and all that other felgercarb that ya'all claim you are against...

    Michale
    0229

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dinner time..

    Catch ya'all in the AM... :D

    Michale
    0230

  178. [178] 
    michty6 wrote:

    But, of course, ONLY the rich who support the Republicans..

    The LEFT rich get kickbacks and quid pro quo and all that other felgercarb that ya'all claim you are against...

    Ah Michale-world, it's a magical place with flying unicorns, crazy liberals, the sky is green (YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT GREEN WITH FACTS!), Obama the evil Kenyan usurper bought the election, global warming is a liberal conspiracy, gays choose to be that way and the evil overlord comes up with tax increases that only apply to Conservatives.

  179. [179] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Democrats = let's not go over the cliff

    You are obviously not up on current events there, sunshine..

    It's Democrats that are saying "'ABSOLUTELY' WILLING TO GO OVER 'CLIFF'

    Of course they're willing to go over the cliff if THAT IS THE BEST OPTION AVAILABLE.

    They made their offer, which does not involve going over the cliff; Republicans countered with an offer when involved going over the cliff AND THEN EVEN MORE CUTS ON TOP OF THIS. Going over AN EVEN BIGGER CLIFF.

    The Republican offer is WORSE than the cliff and Republicans won't accept Obama's offer so GOING OVER THE CLIFF IS THE BEST OFFER AVAILABLE BECAUSE REPUBLICANS OFFER IS WORSE THAN GOING OVER THE CLIFF.

    I mean I thought I made it pretty clear...Look again at post [168] and the analogy I posted. If the mugger will not accept $2.50 but will accept a counter-offer that is HIGHER than his original offer why on earth would YOU accept the counter-offer?

    Jesus. I give up. I have tried using simple/fun analogies but it's like trying to explain simple maths to a parrot that just keeps repeating 'but both are just as bad, but both are just as bad, but Obama is evil, but Obama is evil'. I don't think you understand what 'compromise' means or the numbers involved in the 'fiscal cliff' or any of the details in what either side is offering....You truly are a Republican!

  180. [180] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The ONLY goal is to stick it to the rich..But, of course, ONLY the rich who support the Republicans..

    Illogical. A tax cut on those making over $250k a year would apply equally to everyone making over $250k a year.

    I know I got ya'all on the run when your comments contradict each other AND the reality... :D

    I know we've got you on the run when an average reader would find your comments a bit out there.

    :)

    'Night Ralph ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EEORunLi78

    -David

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know we've got you on the run when an average reader would find your comments a bit out there.

    YOu mean the average Weigantian.. :D

    Because, for the average Weigantian, it's the '-D' after the name that is all important.. :D

    Michale
    0231

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    of course not, it's an opening bid. O is negotiating from a position of strength instead of weakness.

    Apparently, it's NOT an opening bid. It's a failure to compromise..

    If it were an opening bid, then Obama would have countered the GOP counter-offer..

    He didn't.. He has, in effect said, "OK, fine. Let's shove this country over the cliff and into another recessions"...

    In essence, he and the Democrats would rather push taxes up for the poor and middle class rather than NOT be able to push his agenda...

    So I have to say that, as things appear now, Joshua, you were wrong..

    Obama never had any intention to compromise..

    Which is ironic because it's JUST as I said it would be...

    Democrats are all about compromise when they're down..

    When their up, "compromise" is a dirty word...

    Michale
    0232

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting note..

    Ya'all quoted Bob Woodward before...

    “This is the Obama era, it is Obama’s economy. Speaker Boehner’s an important player and this is significant, but it is Obama’s job to lead and define — so if there negative consequences here, particularly in the economy, it is going to be, ‘In the Obama era, things didn’t get fixed.’”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/woodward-on-fiscal-cliff-no-way-to-govern-84617.html#ixzz2EGdflPU0

    That about sums things up..

    When future historians write about this, it will be that Obama and the Democrats were so locked into their ideology that they would rather stick it to the middle class and the poor rather than NOT be able to stick it to the rich...

    Michale
    0234

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House dodges Wintour ambassador talk
    http://www.france24.com/en/20121205-white-house-dodges-wintour-ambassador-talk

    Yea... No quid pro quo when the rich vote Dem, right???

    Once again, Obama proves me right....

    Michale
    0236

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in International News, Syria is loading up munitions with chemical weapons, including Sarin..

    The Obama Administration quickly reacted..

    "STOP!!!! Or I'll say 'STOP' again!!"
    -Obama's Foreign Policy

    How did we EVER get such an incompetent leader???

    Michale
    0237

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Still no evidence to refute the 'Modern Liberal' theory?? :D

    "It's OK, I understand... This ain't no Never Never Land"
    -J. Geils Band, FREEZE FRAME

    :D

    Michale
    0238

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    So I have to say that, as things appear now, Joshua, you were wrong..

    That showed an amazing lack of tact and diplomacy...

    Sowee about that.. But 'tact' has never been my middle name.. :^)

    Michale
    0239

  188. [188] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If it were an opening bid, then Obama would have countered the GOP counter-offer.

    Impossible. By definition.

    Obama made the opening bid. A counter offer can't be an opening bid.

    But I'm sure this is wrong because I'm a Democrat ... :)

    Just like how I was wrong about how a tax increase for the top 2% targets everyone in the top 2% equally.

    Because this is Democratic thinking.

    Sure, Michale ... I also know we've got you on the run when all you can do is scream "Democrat!"

    -David

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama made the opening bid. A counter offer can't be an opening bid.

    Uh.. That's what I said...

    Obama made the opening bid. The GOP counter offered...

    If Obama was sincere about compromise and was negotiating in good faith, then Obama would have made a COUNTER offer to the GOP's counter-offer..

    "Oh, a counter-offer. That's what we lawyers - I'm a lawyer - we lawyers call that a counter-offer. This is a tough decision here. Get my ass kicked or collect $200. Let me think... I could use a good ass-kickin', I'll be very honest with you... nah, I think I'll just go with the two hundred. "
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    But I'm sure this is wrong because I'm a Democrat ... :)

    Naw, not this time.. :D

    Just like how I was wrong about how a tax increase for the top 2% targets everyone in the top 2% equally.

    So, you think small businesses who make $250K a year are in the top 2%???

    Cite???

    Sure, Michale ... I also know we've got you on the run when all you can do is scream "Democrat!"

    On the run? Hardly???

    "Haarrddly???
    -John McClane, DIE HARD III

    I am the one putting down all the facts.. Facts that no one can counter.. :D

    For example, the LUDICROUS idea that small businesses that make $250K a year are in the top 2% of the nation, income wise...

    I thought we had agreed that those making over a million a year should be taxed???

    I guess that's what happens when Democrats are shellackers instead of shellackees...

    The desire for compromise goes right out the window....

    Which is EXACTLY what I said would happen.. :D

    Michale....
    0240

  190. [190] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If it were an opening bid, then Obama would have countered the GOP counter-offer.

    Impossible. By definition.

    BTW- Apologies. I misread and thought you said something different here.

    I think the two sides still are negotiating. I think what we've seen in the media so far are likely the two extremes.

    What I am happy about is that Obama didn't start with the compromise. Like in the healthcare debate. He seems to have become a better negotiator.

    And he should be. As we've argued, his position is strong because a compromise is already in place.

    -David

  191. [191] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I thought we had agreed that those making over a million a year should be taxed?

    And perhaps that could be part of a deal.

    -David

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought we had agreed that those making over a million a year should be taxed???

    I guess that's what happens when Democrats are shellackers instead of shellackees...

    The desire for compromise goes right out the window....

    You see, I really don't have a moral qualm about the REALLY rich people paying more.. I really don't..

    But on what planet is it a good idea to make struggling small businesses pay even MORE in taxes??

    It won't help the economy.. It will HURT the economy...

    Why are Democrats so adamant about HURTING this country more than they already have???

    Michale
    0242

  193. [193] 
    akadjian wrote:

    For example, the LUDICROUS idea that small businesses that make $250K a year are in the top 2% of the nation, income wise.

    This is likely true though. Those making $250k+ are the top 2% of income earners.

  194. [194] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Also for the record ... I'd be willing to place a friendly wager that there is a deal

    Simply based on the BATNA for Republicans. Which I might be underestimating, but hey, it's all in fun

    -David

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Obama's plan is so good, WHY don't Senate Democrats want to vote on it???

    It's funny..

    Obama's budget plans have NEVER *EVER* garnered a SINGLE vote of support from either Republicans or Democrats...

    Why is now any different???

    Michale
    0243

  196. [196] 
    akadjian wrote:

    WHY don't Senate Democrats want to vote on it?

    Why won't Congressional Republicans vote on their plan?

    I think the answer is that they're trying to work this out and come to an agreement that they then could all vote on rather than holding votes that both sides know would go nowhere.

    This is actually, to me, another sign that they may be trying to find common ground rather than wasting time on staged votes.

    -David

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why won't Congressional Republicans vote on their plan?

    Obama's plan came first..

    Let's see the vote on THAT and then you might have an argument..

    This is actually, to me, another sign that they may be trying to find common ground rather than wasting time on staged votes.

    You might be right...

    What's leaking out to the public may be NOTHING but what's going on behind close doors may be everything.

    If this is the case, then WHY keep it behind closed doors??

    Didn't Obama make a transparency pledge??

    Hell even Norquist is saying to televise all the negotiations..

    Funny how all the calls for transparency are coming from the RIGHT and not from the Administration who PLEDGED and PROMISED transparency...

    Michale
    0246

  198. [198] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    Illogical. A tax cut on those making over $250k a year would apply equally to everyone making over $250k a year.

    I would also add to this that tax cuts on people earning $250k a year. If rates go up on 100% of people the rich will get absolutely shellacked on all their income. It is in their interests as much as anyone to keep taxes lower on earnings <$250k.

    Also for the record ... I'd be willing to place a friendly wager that there is a deal

    Simply based on the BATNA for Republicans. Which I might be underestimating, but hey, it's all in fun

    Agreed. Republican's have no leg to stand on so you would think they might be smart and make a deal. But this is probably underestimating how stupid and partisan Republicans are...

    Michale,
    Obama never had any intention to compromise..

    Which is ironic because it's JUST as I said it would be...

    Democrats are all about compromise when they're down..

    When their up, "compromise" is a dirty word...

    Actually 100% factually wrong. Obama offered a compromise to the fiscal cliff, by the very basic definition of compromise. Nothing the Republicans offered meets 'compromise' unless you define compromise as 'take the initial starting point, worst case scenario and then make it even worse and more one sided'. I guess in your world that would be how you define compromise lolol.

    Obama's budget plans have NEVER *EVER* garnered a SINGLE vote of support from either Republicans or Democrats...

    Because this is nonsense and you just made this up? Jesus Michale, I know you HATE facts, but if you're going to spew your fantasy land nonsense at least look at the last Democratic budget that was voted on in the Senate...

  199. [199] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Whoops meant to say in my first sentence
    * I would also add to this that tax cuts on people earning $250k a year because they will decrease their marginal tax rate on that first $250k of earnings...

  200. [200] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If this is the case, then WHY keep it behind closed doors?

    I'd agree.

    I think Republicans believe that they would win the media spectacle. But all their money and media didn't win them the last one.

    I'd vote to make the negotiations more public. Just don't let Jim Lehrer moderate it please :)

    -David

  201. [201] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- Another good article describing the dilemma House Republicans are in: They need to find a way to vote for increasing taxes while going on record as opposing tax increases.

    Is this perhaps the true compromise they're looking for?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/06/the-morning-plum-a-way-out-of-the-impasse/

  202. [202] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I'd vote to make the negotiations more public.

    Perhaps not every second. Because people may need to make concessions that may not be popular with everyone.

    But perhaps there's some middle ground where the public could know more about what's going on.

    It's tough because if it were televised, you would likely only have people playing to the cameras and marketing. Kind of like the election!

    -David

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Because this is nonsense and you just made this up? Jesus Michale, I know you HATE facts, but if you're going to spew your fantasy land nonsense at least look at the last Democratic budget that was voted on in the Senate...

    You have a tendency to make claims without ANY substantiation...

    Since I can't prove a negative, you show me an *Obama* Budget Plan that garnared a Dem vote....

    Put up or Shut Up.. :D

    Michale
    0247

  204. [204] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Uhm how about the last Democratic budget to go in front of the Senate?

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/with-vp-biden-presiding-senate-passes-democrats-tax-cut-plan/

  205. [205] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Damn facts, spoiling your fantasy world. Swat them away...

  206. [206] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Since I can't prove a negative

    Logically, proving negatives is quite possible. For example, you could prove "there is no cat in this box" by doing an analysis of the box and showing there is no cat in the box.

    However, what you seem to like to do is make a statement and then say if you can't prove it's not true, then it is true.

    This is simply a logical fallacy.

    Whether or not evidence exists to prove something is true can have nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

    Michty's unicorn example, for instance. Saying "I believe in unicorns because there is no evidence to say they don't exist" is an example.

    This is a fun list ...

    http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

    -David

    p.s. BTW- Here's an Obama budget which passed resoundingly. Interesting also that it's not getting much coverage

    http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/172/1264871/

    Now you'll probably say "That's not an Obama budget" To which I would reply, the President doesn't create budgets. This is the responsibility of Congress. So the question is a bit silly to begin with.

  207. [207] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "On Tuesday, FedEx Chairman and CEO Fred Smith, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that the notion that tax hikes on the richest Americans would kill jobs was simply "mythology.""

    How dare you break rank! Must have been a filthy liberal working undercover in McCain's campaign...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/top-two-percent-tax_n_2245596.html

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm how about the last Democratic budget to go in front of the Senate?

    DEMOCRAT Budget...

    Not OBAMA Budget....

    I knew you were talkin' out yer arse... :D

    Michale
    0248

  209. [209] 
    michty6 wrote:

    DEMOCRAT Budget...

    Not OBAMA Budget...

    LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. You do know what party Obama is the head of?? Hahahahaha amazing. I knew you would try and find some half assed attempt to wriggle out of being wrong but this is amazing!!

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    None of which changes the fact that, on EVERY budget plan Obama has put forth, it was either NEVER allowed to come to a vote, or NO ONE, DEM or GOP voted for it..

    So, WHY do ya'all think THIS plan of Obama's has anything going for it when NONE before has???

    Answer: Because of that all important '-D' behind Obama's name..

    Obama could say that the sky is purple and water is dry and ya'all would be "yep yep.. He's right"...

    Michale
    0250

  211. [211] 
    michty6 wrote:

    None of which changes the fact that, on EVERY budget plan Obama has put forth, it was either NEVER allowed to come to a vote, or NO ONE, DEM or GOP voted for it..

    Completely 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% wrong. For one, the President doesn't have power to 'put forth' bills. You live in Fox News lalalalalaland.

    So, WHY do ya'all think THIS plan of Obama's has anything going for it when NONE before has???

    Because this is the plan being put forward by the DEMOCRATS in discussions with the REPUBLICANS. Jesus what world do you live on?? A maniacal world where Democrats don't even support THEIR OWN PLAN that they are putting forward in negotiations lolololol

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama could say that the sky is purple and water is dry and ya'all would be "yep yep.. He's right"...

    Do you know how I know this is true??

    Because NO ONE here has fundementally disagreed with ANY ACTION that Obama has taken.. There are some actions of Obama's that I KNOW for a fact you disagree with, but you give Obama a pass because, as one Dem put it, Obama is lord and savior...

    That's why it's difficult to have rational debates with the majority of ya'all... You won't call FOUL on Obama over ANYTHING...

    Even the stuff I *KNOW* you think are foul..

    It's really THAT simple...

    Michale
    0251

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because NO ONE here has fundementally disagreed with ANY ACTION that Obama has taken.. There are some actions of Obama's that I KNOW for a fact you disagree with, but you give Obama a pass because, as one Dem put it, Obama is lord and savior...

    Let me clarify that..

    With a couple exceptions no one here will ARTICULATE any disagreement with Obama on various issues..

    That's why it's so difficult to have rational discussions.. Because I never know whether ya'all actually agree with Obama or ya'all are just SAYING you agree with Obama, to toe the Party line...

    It goes back to intellectual honesty that was (and is) a pet peeve of mine...

    Michale
    0252

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    For one, the President doesn't have power to 'put forth' bills.

    There you go again, changing my words to fit your nonsensical argument..

    I said Obama BUDGET...

    Not Obama BILL...

    If you can't be honest about debating, why not just stop??

    It wastes my time and makes you look like a nimnull...

    Michale.....
    0253

  215. [215] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    I have a proposition for you. Anytime you post a comment that says 'you are all under mind control/you all won't say anything bad about him/we think he is Lord and Saviour/other rhetorical nonsense etc etc etc' you either:

    (1) Save the time and don't bother. Repeating this to yourself a million times won't make it true.
    (2) (My preferred option) Count this as 10 points in your posting count.

    Almost every single thread we go through this song and dance and quite frankly it's BORING AS HELL. I repeat: no matter how many times you repeat something to yourself it won't come true.

    Now back to the actual discussion...

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    A maniacal world where Democrats don't even support THEIR OWN PLAN that they are putting forward in negotiations lolololol

    Apparently, so...

    Unanimous: Obama Budget Defeated 414-0
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/29/unanimous_obama_budget_defeated_4140

    This might make you happy...

    You and Obama have something in common..

    Neither of you can admit when you're wrong..

    As you are here.. AGAIN...

    Michale
    0254

  217. [217] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Oh you mean:
    Republicans laughably pass a bill called the 'Obama budget' that doesn't resemble the Obama budget in anyway whatsoever to waste everyone's time
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/senate-budget-jeff-sessions_n_1522643.html

    We've already had this discussion on here Michale about the 'Republican Obama budget bills' that they tried to pass. I mean come on ARE YOU THAT STUPID? Do you seriously think that Obama's budget would get 0 votes in both the Senate and the House? You are incredibly naive and willing to buy into anything Fox says if you actually believe that...

  218. [218] 
    michty6 wrote:

    * Sorry by 'pass' I mean 'propose'. But you get the drift. This was politifact's take on it: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    You whine and cry about Fox, yet YOUR source is HuffPo!??? Why not just shed ALL pretense of rationality and post a DailyKos link!? :D

    There apparently *IS* a "stupid" one here, but it ain't me.. :D

    Michale
    0261

  220. [220] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You whine and cry about Fox, yet YOUR source is HuffPo!???

    Unfortunately they, among a few others, were the only ones who noticed that the 'Obama budget bill presented by the Republican party' which was unanimously rejected (56 pages - basically a list of meaningless numbers) was basically a parody of the actual Obama budget bill (~2000 pages). Anyway I've already discussed this on here with CB, who didn't care if it wasn't a real budget as she thought it was a good publicity stunt for the Republican party... Also if you find said discussion, you'll have seen that this isn't the first time the Republicans have played this game - they did it with Clinton too where a 'Clinton budget bill presented by the Republican party' was also unanimously rejected.

    Only an idiot would seriously think that not 1 Democrat would back the actual President's budget (especially since your backing is just for show anyway, since the mere math of the House means passing it would not be possible).

    But hey, give the sheepies their chance to shout about how no Democrats will vote for Obama budget bills. Clearly, judging by you, it works...

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only an idiot would seriously think that not 1 Democrat would back the actual President's budget (especially since your backing is just for show anyway, since the mere math of the House means passing it would not be possible).

    I have already given you the link that PROVED that NO ONE in the HOUSE voted for Obama's Budget the last time it went for a vote..

    Which is why Reid is not allowing the Senate to vote on Obama's latest budget..

    Would be too embarrassing for Obama to have his budget COMPLETELY rejected... AGAIN....

    Michale
    0264

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice spin, though...

    But it just doesn't pass the SMELL test... :D

    Michale
    0265

  223. [223] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I have already given you the link that PROVED that NO ONE in the HOUSE voted for Obama's Budget the last time it went for a vote..

    Lol nope you provided a link that showed nobody voted for a Republican proposed bill called 'Obama's budget' that nobody voted for. Only a monkey with 2 brain cells couldn't see that this bill is absolutely nothing to do with Obama's actual bill (if you search CW to the last time we discussed this, I linked to both).

    But hey cute little trick by Republicans. It works on the ill informed and ignorant pretty well - just check how easily you (and probably many others like you) bought it... It's just a shame they don't spend their time in Congress trying to pass ACTUAL bills for the millions of people suffering during an economic recession...

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol nope you provided a link that showed nobody voted for a Republican proposed bill called 'Obama's budget' that nobody voted for. Only a monkey with 2 brain cells couldn't see that this bill is absolutely nothing to do with Obama's actual bill (if you search CW to the last time we discussed this, I linked to both).

    In other words, when confronted with the factual evidence that you were wrong, you do the equivalent of sticking your thumbs in your ears and squealing, "I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!!! I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!!"..

    Real mature... :D

    Michale
    0291

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]