Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day..

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14594
(14594 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 05:58 PM
[So the solution should be what; redefining what gov't can tell you want to do with your property?

The company is the property of its owners. Are we to re-write the concepts of liberty so that the state can tell you want to do with that property if it doesn't like your choices?]

Then why not just let these big corporations set up sweatshops all over the USA and allow them to pay slave labor here and circumvent any workers rights issues???? There is no difference between the two. By your logic they own the companies and should be able to do whatever they want in the name of further profit. I am sure Walmart, Home Depot and all of the other mega companies who already make enormous profits and underpay their employees would just love to be able to pay less and make even further profit. Just ridiculous hypocrisy that makes no sense and has all but destroyed the middle class in this country. Those jobs are never coming back and there will never be enough equally paying jobs to replace them.

The American corporation's lust for greed and making every last dollar over any kind of loyalty to our middle class work force has caused this mess IMO.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8497
(8498 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 06:04 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Biggest problem is allowing the big corporations to outsource without recourse.

Allowing?

So the solution should be what; redefining what gov't can tell you want to do with your property?

The company is the property of its owners. Are we to re-write the concepts of liberty so that the state can tell you want to do with that property if it doesn't like your choices?

I can't imagine anything that would destroy the business environment and sink our economy faster than such ideas about state control. We need more liberty, not less. Hasn't that been the lesson of history? Micromanagement by the state is a dead loser, as witnessed in both the USSR and China.

This is the mindset that has to change. We've heard similar for too many years now and it's produced nothing but political hot air, economically ignorant voters, and useless anger. The assets and jobs a company has are the sole property of that company. Period. If a society wants to enjoy the benefits of economic growth, it has to constantly assess it's environment for business, productive investment, and opportunity vs other major economies, and adjust as global competition dictates.

Outside of playing king-maker with taxpayer funds directed to favored cronies, our leaders have made conditions consistently worse for business for at least 30 years now. Voters need to pay more attention, elect people who will improve conditions for all businesses in an equal fashion, and change their mindset about "evil" business. Business exists to make profit for their owners by serving a market need. A by-product is jobs. Expecting something else is foolish. But make no doubt; only by optimizing the first principle will the second exist at all.

For those who believe in something else, I ask; how was the American middle class made possible? History is clear; we were the best place on the planet to invest in productive enterprise from roughly the early 1800's to the 1960's. We had the best combination of profit opportunity, resources, labor, and freedom to operate. That mixture created a demand for labor that drove up it's price, with higher wages enabling a middle class to emerge. The destruction of competing economies because of WWII extended our middle class' strength into the latter part of the last century. Dislike it all you wish, but the potential for profit comes first, with labor benefiting afterward.


No, the answer is to tax the cr@p out of corporations who are profitable but send jobs away to become more profitable. These companies shouldn't be considered American companies if that is how they are gonna do things. If a corporation can prove that they can not make a profit using American workers then fine but if they are doing perfectly fine and making good profits here then they should face massive taxes. Maybe if they are taxed the amount of the extra profits made by using slave labor and then a little more on top of that they might think twice about sending jobs away from their already profitable companies??? Until something is done to level the playing field these companies will continue the practice and the playing field certainly isn't level with companies being allowed to use slave labor.

And yes I said allowed!!!!!! Like I stated above if someone is found running a sweatshop here, paying and treating their employees like that they would get shut down and fined and who knows what else. Yet it is perfectly fine if we do the same exact thing only setting up the sweatshops overseas????? American hypocrisy at it's best and the American middle class are the victims.

The world doesn't revolve around America, and does so less every day. This sort of insular, living-in-an-American-vacuum thinking is exactly why we have the economic trajectory we have. Hopefully the majority will get fed up with diminished opportunity and open their minds how things really work. Those who refuse to learn and adjust are doomed.

 

____________________
If the Ukrainians didn't know, there ain't no quid pro quo

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14594
(14594 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 06:10 PM
[Hasn't that been the lesson of history? Micromanagement by the state is a dead loser, as witnessed in both the USSR and China.]

All I know is that the lesson of our recent history is that profitable American companies that were perfectly profitable here are sending their American jobs overseas to make further profit at the expense of those American workers. This doesn't do anything positive for anyone other than those corporate CEOs and management. The very few profit and the majority get fu_ked over. Doesn't look to me like our recent history's lessons have worked out very well unless you happen to own one of these companies using sweatshop slave labor.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4659
(4665 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 06:20 PM
quote:
quote:
Growth has been stagnant. In order to really imrpove conditions growth during non-recessionary periods has to be sufficient to not only make up for the years of negative growth but also account for population increases. The economy has simply not done that.


Again, what is your measures of growth? GDP? Retail sales?

quote:
To blame Congress is ridiculous.


Why?

quote:
Whether his fans want to admit it or not he is remarkably divisive. Virtually everything he says is divisive.


Oh, yes. The day he was elected, 100% of all Americans loved and cherished him. He and only he has brought on this divisiveness. Why, every Republican in Washington was blowing champagne and roses out their backsides in glee for the wonderful opportunity to be led! Alas, sadly, 'twas not to be...

quote:
Heck he even gratuitously insulted Putin a couple of days ago saying "He looks like the kid in class who was too cool to care about anything" (or something to that effect) Who says things like this?


Indeed! Previous Presidents referred to Putin as "Pootie-Poot." That's a lot more respectful.

By the way, are you really upset that Vladimir Putin was insulted?

quote:
Every time he mentions the other party its to accuse them of essentially being traitors, putting their own desire to hurt him ahead of the country.


The strategies laid out by his political opponents are well-documented. The top Republicans met shortly before the inauguration and laid out the plans. It's all there to read and not one of them has denied it.

What is the desire of the Republicans? Do they have a jobs plan? Do they have an Obamacare alternative?

quote:
The idea that your political opponents might actually have a view that is honestly held but wrong? Not something that occurs to him.


He tell you this?

quote:
History is not going to judge him kindly. Of that I am certain.



As certain that you were that Romney would win?


Wonderful & insightful responses, Hawk!

Only one thing I might add, and it is to this statement made by the original poster - "History is not going to judge him kindly. Of that I am certain."

I have no clue how anyone can make such a statement. It takes years & sometimes generations before history judges. What might be perceived or viewed in 10 or 20 years may evolve into a completely different perspective 50 or 100 years from now. Only time will tell how Obama and this Congress will be viewed. I'm not quite sure how anyone can make an historical prediction and emphasize it with certainty. Must me some special insight that most people don't possess.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6015
(6014 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 09:23 PM
quote:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you force him to get up early, bust his butt all day , buy and maintain a boat and fishing gear when he could have skipped all of this and just gone on assistance.

A large group of people in this country are saying, 'Just give me the freakin fish and some beer money and I will be fine.'


Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, tech a man to fish and you can't find him to do chores all weekend long.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 10:08 PM
quote:
It is not cr@p, far from it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless you have had your eyes closed. It is as obvious as the nose on your face how the Republicans have obstructed at every level with all of it's might even on issues that they had previously supported. If you can't see this you are helplessly blind. No other President in history have been treated this way. The day after Obama was elected OcConnel stated that the Republicans main priority was to make Obama a one term President and his party have followed up on that pledge even though they failed on the one term thing.

WHO SAYS THINGS LIKE THAT ABOUT A NEWLY SEATED PRESIDENT BEFORE HE DOES A SINGLE THING?????? And you are gonna try to tell us that the Republicans haven't obstructed everything Obama has pushed even on issues they formerly supported in order to hurt Obama??????? I know you are smarter than that Doug. It is quite obvious that that is exactly what the Republicans have done and if you can't see and admit to that then you are not paying attention.


1. Most of them won their elections or were re-elected for that expressed purpose, to reign in Obama. They responded to what they were hearing from voters, campaigned on it and won on it. Sorry, but that's just the way it works.

2. They didn't have to wait because it wasn't hard to figure out what Obama is about. Even posters on this board recognized it with no problem. Don't say you weren't warned.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 11:31 PM
quote:
But it's far from 100%, and we're only talking about a relatively small number of corporations that have sufficient pull to influence politicians. There's millions of other businesses out there trying to stay open or grow in what is otherwise a very tough environment with no help from gov't.


Relatively small? No. The corporations that own the politicians, including the Chamber of Commerce, represent a majority share of the gross domestic product.

quote:
Roughly 2/3rds of all Federal spending goes to social programs, where corporate welfare might be 100 to 200 billion a year.


I don't believe that to be accurate. You are certainly not taking into account the money the government does not get from the corporations that are not paying taxes. Please provide a citation/link for the claim.

We don't even know the amounts spent on maintaining our empire because many budgets are classified.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 11:33 PM
quote:
Right you are BB, but watch it...aren't these the "job creators", or so we've been told? Let us see in the next prez election if there isn't some other "creative term" used to describe those receiving corporate welfare, as if it really ends up benefiting the middle & lower classes.


We now have decades of information that show trickle down economics only benefit the rich.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 11:36 PM
quote:
With the exception of utilities, you can choose not to patronize those. The government faces no such penalty and we all must continue to pay for their waste and fraud.


That's why you have to vote. It is also why everyone should register Independent and really question any Party rhetoric as well as Party fund raising efforts. The two Parties and the media are the financial beneficiaries of our current political system.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 11:42 PM
quote:
-- You blame corporate money and power for the gov't freebies given to them by politicians, but don't hold the politicians accountable? Are you kidding me? The only way those idiots stay in office is through the citizens vote. No amount of corporate power can keep them there if the citizens say otherwise. A citizenry uninformed and easily manipulated by advertising and media reports gets exactly what they deserve.


Whatever gave you that idea? I live in Eric Cantor's district. That do nothing, panty waste is a Koch head. He disgusts me. Just looking at him turns my stomach. He is one of the most revolting human beings to ever walk the face of Sweet Mother Earth.

The last guy who ran against him only raised $650,000. $150 donated by me. Cantor had a war chest of over 17 million dollars. The Koch brothers, who don't even live in Virginia, were able to donate to his campaign as well as more, uncounted money to his PACS.

What gave you the idea that I don't blame the politicians. If they are an incumbent they got to go.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 11:44 PM
quote:
It doesn't apply to corporations. Corporations are artificial entities that have one purpose. To make a profit. Society benefits as a side effect. Right now, the government as it is set up, benefits giant conglomerates at the expense of smaller corporations and businesses. I don't think corporations should be permitted to make political contributions (or charitable contributions for that matter). But not because I oppose their free speech rights as such but because I believe they should be using all their resources to the benefit of the company and its shareholders.



Investing in Politicians reaps tremendous return. Having the right guy slip in the right amendment or just add a line to a bill can return exponential profit.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/12/2013 at 11:50 PM
I'm loving the discussion but just got home after ten hours on the road. I've got to sleep. But this is a fine "forum".

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 05:26 AM
1. Most of them won their elections or were re-elected for that expressed purpose, to reign in Obama. They responded to what they were hearing from voters, campaigned on it and won on it. Sorry, but that's just the way it works.

This republican house filled with John Birchers /Teabaggers are only interested in sabotaging anything Obama tries to do at the expense of the American people. They haven't passed a single jobs bill while trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act 40 times. Their main agenda and platform seems to be screwing 30 million people out of their only shot to get decent affordable health care, sticking ultrasound probes up womens vaginas, protecting the rich at the expense of everyone else, teaching creationism in schools, denying science, restricting voting and blaming the poor.




[Edited on 8/13/2013 by Peachypetewi]

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 11:54 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
As long as Obama's main priorities are to reduce income disparity and spread wealth around the stagnation will continue.

Good thing those aren't his priorities.

quote:
The main focus should be restoring GDP growth.

GDP has been growing since 2010. Should it be growing faster? I'm not sure given the relatively stagment global economy of the last several years, but even if your answer is a resounding yes and you want to point a finger at Obama then you HAVE to also point the finger at congress which has fought and blocked the majority of the president's agenda and offered next to nothing in its place.

quote:
When Obama's term is up it will be like a piano lifted off the back of the economy.

Groundless specualtion. Let's at least see who the next presidential candidates are, not to mention who actually gets elected and what the makeup of congress will be, before predicting what the econmomy will do in the spring of 2017.


Growth has been stagnant. In order to really imrpove conditions growth during non-recessionary periods has to be sufficient to not only make up for the years of negative growth but also account for population increases. The economy has simply not done that. To blame Congress is ridiculous. First of all, Obama's so-called program is anti-business and anti-growth. It may have other positives but it is not pro-growth. Second, he has shown NO leadership in terms of enacting an agenda. Whether his fans want to admit it or not he is remarkably divisive. Virtually everything he says is divisive. Heck he even gratuitously insulted Putin a couple of days ago saying "He looks like the kid in class who was too cool to care about anything" (or something to that effect) Who says things like this? Every time he mentions the other party its to accuse them of essentially being traitors, putting their own desire to hurt him ahead of the country. What crap. The idea that your political opponents might actually have a view that is honestly held but wrong? Not something that occurs to him. History is not going to judge him kindly. Of that I am certain.


That is all opinion and you are entitled to it of course.


Thank you. I' m glad to know I'm entitled to my opinion. These days you have to wonder.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 11:56 AM
quote:
quote:
Every time he mentions the other party its to accuse them of essentially being traitors, putting their own desire to hurt him ahead of the country. What crap.


So, you are saying they didn't actually public state that this was their intent? It's not true?

I also seem to remember that anybody that actually questioned anything Bush did was called a traitor - even in these forums.....


1. No they did not. They stated in their own caucus that their goal was to remove him from office in the next election. ALWAYS the goal of the opposition party. At no time did they declare that they wanted the country to be hurt. Rather they feel that his presidency is hurting the country. The Democrats felt the exact same thing during the Reagan, Bus I and Bush II administrations. Poor little Obama can't take political opposition. He expects to rule by acclimation.

2. I don't recall anyone who criticized Bush being called a traitor. You would need to post those quotes before I accept it.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 11:59 AM
quote:
quote:

By the way, are you really upset that Vladimir Putin was insulted?


I'm not! That pr!ck stole Bob Kraft's Superbowl ring!


It's not so much that he was insulted. It is the idea that our chief diplomat and head of state will basically condescend to another head of state while that other head of state is handing him his lunch on a nearly daily basis. It's just not something a head of state should do. It's very unpresidential to do this in a press conference. But nobody who supports him will ever admit that Obama is flawed in any way at all.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 12:02 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Growth has been stagnant. In order to really imrpove conditions growth during non-recessionary periods has to be sufficient to not only make up for the years of negative growth but also account for population increases. The economy has simply not done that.


Again, what is your measures of growth? GDP? Retail sales?

quote:
To blame Congress is ridiculous.


Why?

quote:
Whether his fans want to admit it or not he is remarkably divisive. Virtually everything he says is divisive.


Oh, yes. The day he was elected, 100% of all Americans loved and cherished him. He and only he has brought on this divisiveness. Why, every Republican in Washington was blowing champagne and roses out their backsides in glee for the wonderful opportunity to be led! Alas, sadly, 'twas not to be...

quote:
Heck he even gratuitously insulted Putin a couple of days ago saying "He looks like the kid in class who was too cool to care about anything" (or something to that effect) Who says things like this?


Indeed! Previous Presidents referred to Putin as "Pootie-Poot." That's a lot more respectful.

By the way, are you really upset that Vladimir Putin was insulted?

quote:
Every time he mentions the other party its to accuse them of essentially being traitors, putting their own desire to hurt him ahead of the country.


The strategies laid out by his political opponents are well-documented. The top Republicans met shortly before the inauguration and laid out the plans. It's all there to read and not one of them has denied it.

What is the desire of the Republicans? Do they have a jobs plan? Do they have an Obamacare alternative?

quote:
The idea that your political opponents might actually have a view that is honestly held but wrong? Not something that occurs to him.


He tell you this?

quote:
History is not going to judge him kindly. Of that I am certain.



As certain that you were that Romney would win?


Wonderful & insightful responses, Hawk!

Only one thing I might add, and it is to this statement made by the original poster - "History is not going to judge him kindly. Of that I am certain."

I have no clue how anyone can make such a statement. It takes years & sometimes generations before history judges. What might be perceived or viewed in 10 or 20 years may evolve into a completely different perspective 50 or 100 years from now. Only time will tell how Obama and this Congress will be viewed. I'm not quite sure how anyone can make an historical prediction and emphasize it with certainty. Must me some special insight that most people don't possess.


As Bhawk kindly pointed out I have been certain and wrong before. Saying I am certain just means I believe it very strongly.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 12:05 PM
quote:
1. Most of them won their elections or were re-elected for that expressed purpose, to reign in Obama. They responded to what they were hearing from voters, campaigned on it and won on it. Sorry, but that's just the way it works.

This republican house filled with John Birchers /Teabaggers are only interested in sabotaging anything Obama tries to do at the expense of the American people. They haven't passed a single jobs bill while trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act 40 times. Their main agenda and platform seems to be screwing 30 million people out of their only shot to get decent affordable health care, sticking ultrasound probes up womens vaginas, protecting the rich at the expense of everyone else, teaching creationism in schools, denying science, restricting voting and blaming the poor.




[Edited on 8/13/2013 by Peachypetewi]


And the above is, more or less, what comes across from the president of the United States and explains why he has no influence over any Republicans. I wouldn't work with someone who said these things about me.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14594
(14594 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 12:12 PM
quote:
quote:
It is not cr@p, far from it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless you have had your eyes closed. It is as obvious as the nose on your face how the Republicans have obstructed at every level with all of it's might even on issues that they had previously supported. If you can't see this you are helplessly blind. No other President in history have been treated this way. The day after Obama was elected OcConnel stated that the Republicans main priority was to make Obama a one term President and his party have followed up on that pledge even though they failed on the one term thing.

WHO SAYS THINGS LIKE THAT ABOUT A NEWLY SEATED PRESIDENT BEFORE HE DOES A SINGLE THING?????? And you are gonna try to tell us that the Republicans haven't obstructed everything Obama has pushed even on issues they formerly supported in order to hurt Obama??????? I know you are smarter than that Doug. It is quite obvious that that is exactly what the Republicans have done and if you can't see and admit to that then you are not paying attention.


1. Most of them won their elections or were re-elected for that expressed purpose, to reign in Obama. They responded to what they were hearing from voters, campaigned on it and won on it. Sorry, but that's just the way it works.

2. They didn't have to wait because it wasn't hard to figure out what Obama is about. Even posters on this board recognized it with no problem. Don't say you weren't warned.


That is BS and you damn well know it. Name another time when the Senate leader of a party stated the day after the election that their top priority was to make the President a one term President. I never heard it before in my lifetime. Here are just seven issues that the Republicans supported but completely flipped on when Obama pushed them. This is obviously solely to undermine Obama and not allow him to take credit for there success.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/11/things-republicans-were-for-and-now -are-against/

 

____________________
Pete

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 12:17 PM
quote:
And the above is, more or less, what comes across from the president of the United States and explains why he has no influence over any Republicans.


Oh really, that is what explains it? It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that many republicans in congress have pledged (some quite literally/publically) not to work with him?

quote:
I wouldn't work with someone who said these things about me.

With the vitriol being spewed from all sides in DC these days, it is hard for a DC politcian to swing dead cat and not hit someone who had said something bad about them. If everyone said "I can't work with someone who says bad things about me" then nobody would be working with anyone and nothing would ever get done. Oh, wait a minute...

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14594
(14594 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 12:22 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Every time he mentions the other party its to accuse them of essentially being traitors, putting their own desire to hurt him ahead of the country. What crap.


So, you are saying they didn't actually public state that this was their intent? It's not true?

I also seem to remember that anybody that actually questioned anything Bush did was called a traitor - even in these forums.....


1. No they did not. They stated in their own caucus that their goal was to remove him from office in the next election. ALWAYS the goal of the opposition party. At no time did they declare that they wanted the country to be hurt. Rather they feel that his presidency is hurting the country. The Democrats felt the exact same thing during the Reagan, Bus I and Bush II administrations. Poor little Obama can't take political opposition. He expects to rule by acclimation.

2. I don't recall anyone who criticized Bush being called a traitor. You would need to post those quotes before I accept it.



This is complete bull$hit!!! Show me one other time that the leader of a party's Senate came out the day after a general election and stated that their top priority was to make the new President a one term President. Never happened in my lifetime. Not for Reagan or either Bush or even Clinton. The leaders of their party also had a meeting specifically for the purpose of making it known that their goal was to make Obama one term. Here again is just seven of the myriad of issues that the Republicans loved in the past but have nixed when pushed by Obama fearing that he will get credit for them. They are nothing but obstructionists and even their dismal approval rating which is less than half of the President's approval rating won't stop them from their blatant obstruction.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/11/things-republicans-were-for-and-now -are-against/

[Edited on 8/13/2013 by sixty8]

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 12:31 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Every time he mentions the other party its to accuse them of essentially being traitors, putting their own desire to hurt him ahead of the country. What crap.


So, you are saying they didn't actually public state that this was their intent? It's not true?

I also seem to remember that anybody that actually questioned anything Bush did was called a traitor - even in these forums.....


1. No they did not. They stated in their own caucus that their goal was to remove him from office in the next election. ALWAYS the goal of the opposition party. At no time did they declare that they wanted the country to be hurt. Rather they feel that his presidency is hurting the country. The Democrats felt the exact same thing during the Reagan, Bus I and Bush II administrations. Poor little Obama can't take political opposition. He expects to rule by acclimation.

2. I don't recall anyone who criticized Bush being called a traitor. You would need to post those quotes before I accept it.



This is complete bull$hit!!! Show me one other time that the leader of a party's Senate came out the day after a general election and stated that their top priority was to make the new President a one term President. Never happened in my lifetime. Not for Reagan or either Bush or even Clinton. The leaders of their party also had a meeting specifically for the purpose of making it known that their goal was to make Obama one term.


Perhaps you should do some background on this before getting all riled up about it...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-sa y-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e 2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 12:46 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Every time he mentions the other party its to accuse them of essentially being traitors, putting their own desire to hurt him ahead of the country. What crap.


So, you are saying they didn't actually public state that this was their intent? It's not true?

I also seem to remember that anybody that actually questioned anything Bush did was called a traitor - even in these forums.....


1. No they did not. They stated in their own caucus that their goal was to remove him from office in the next election. ALWAYS the goal of the opposition party. At no time did they declare that they wanted the country to be hurt. Rather they feel that his presidency is hurting the country. The Democrats felt the exact same thing during the Reagan, Bus I and Bush II administrations. Poor little Obama can't take political opposition. He expects to rule by acclimation.

2. I don't recall anyone who criticized Bush being called a traitor. You would need to post those quotes before I accept it.



This is complete bull$hit!!! Show me one other time that the leader of a party's Senate came out the day after a general election and stated that their top priority was to make the new President a one term President. Never happened in my lifetime. Not for Reagan or either Bush or even Clinton. The leaders of their party also had a meeting specifically for the purpose of making it known that their goal was to make Obama one term.


Perhaps you should do some background on this before getting all riled up about it...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-sa y-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e 2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html


Actions often speak louder than words.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_ n_1452899.html

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14594
(14594 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 01:02 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Every time he mentions the other party its to accuse them of essentially being traitors, putting their own desire to hurt him ahead of the country. What crap.


So, you are saying they didn't actually public state that this was their intent? It's not true?

I also seem to remember that anybody that actually questioned anything Bush did was called a traitor - even in these forums.....


1. No they did not. They stated in their own caucus that their goal was to remove him from office in the next election. ALWAYS the goal of the opposition party. At no time did they declare that they wanted the country to be hurt. Rather they feel that his presidency is hurting the country. The Democrats felt the exact same thing during the Reagan, Bus I and Bush II administrations. Poor little Obama can't take political opposition. He expects to rule by acclimation.

2. I don't recall anyone who criticized Bush being called a traitor. You would need to post those quotes before I accept it.



This is complete bull$hit!!! Show me one other time that the leader of a party's Senate came out the day after a general election and stated that their top priority was to make the new President a one term President. Never happened in my lifetime. Not for Reagan or either Bush or even Clinton. The leaders of their party also had a meeting specifically for the purpose of making it known that their goal was to make Obama one term.


Perhaps you should do some background on this before getting all riled up about it...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-sa y-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e 2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html


Actions often speak louder than words.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_ n_1452899.html


Indeed!!!

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/13/2013 at 01:39 PM
So Obama is some poor little victim? Give us a break!

If it took place, I seriously doubt this is the first such meeting in the annals of American politics. At least they let the election take place unfettered, rather than having a challenger thrown off the ballot as Obama has done, or pulled strings to have sealed documents unsealed right at election time as Obama did. Poor little Barack!

And it might be a slight issue if any of Obama's major policy initiatives has actually been popular with the American people (it's not - and they haven't). Or was he elected only to represent Democrats?

 

____________________

 
<<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com