My definition of the current Republican Party?

Defined by who? A bunch of crazy conservatives?? The conservative ideal is to prevent social movement. It's been stated as far back as Edmund Burke; the leading voice of the anti-Enlightenment. Conservatives want everyone to stay in their place. Don't get "uppity". A nice little racist term that has been part of their lexicon forever.

Thinkers like Burke place individuals as subordinate to society and its traditions. Therefore, the anti-Enlightenment is a rejection of both of the central tenets of the Enlightenment that have been the commitment to individual rights, and to science and reason.

Burke wrote on the "The limits of liberty"

Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals
should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves, and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to
those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights. But as the liberties and the restrictions vary with times and circumstances and admit to infinite modifications, they cannot be settled upon any abstract rule; and
nothing is so foolish as to discuss them upon that principle.

One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause. By this each person has at once divested himself of the first
fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself and to assert his own cause. He abdicates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the
right of self-defense, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the
most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it.

He also said this regarding the "Social Contract" which is what we are based on in this country. Our own Constitution is a Social Contract.

As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of
eternal society…
This law is not subject to the will of those, who by an obligation above them, and infinitely superior, are bound to submit their will to that law. The municipal corporations of that universal kingdom are not morally at liberty at their pleasure, and on the speculations of a contingent improvement, wholly to separate
and set asunder the bands of their subordinate community, and to dissolve it into an unsocial, uncivil, unconnected chaos of elementary principles.

Now, considering that you didn't understand the joke about Sharia Law, I'm not certain that you'll understand anything that Burke was saying, but understand that even Mark Levin ( the self-proclaimed Great One) refers to Burke as a guide to Conservative thinking.

To this, our own Thomas Paine responded:
"There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organized, or how administered.

Paine spoke to America. Not Burke. This country is a product of the Enlightenment. NOT the Anti-Enlightenment views of Edmund Burke, and Burke is considered the father of modern Conservatism. Your conservatism is NOT the bedrock of American Values.

 

How's the right wing War on Drugs working out? And of course the War on the tactic of Terrorism??

 

There is no problem. Don't you get that yet?? It's another case of looking for a leash law for Unicorns. Ain't gonna happen. There is ZERO chance of Sharia EVER dictating law in the UK, and even less chance here. You have a better chance of having a meteor hit your house. You don't stop people from speaking on a soap box, and you don't, jump to the conclusion that the end of the world is about to take place unless you enact a law to cover that absurdity.

 

And that is an example of Republican Either/Or thinking. It has a number of names. Bifurcation, Black and White Fallacy. False Dilemma. The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are are similarly fallacious. You offer an Either/Or statement which is a false dilemma.

It's more likely that nobody is envious of what others have, nor are they attempting to offer any diversion to justify any conspiratorial efforts, but to point to an obvious flaw in the economic theories of conservatives that render people into poverty and economic immobility in a country that pretends to dangle images of the "American Dream" which has become an American Nightmare. Your policies have devastated families economically, and then you have the audacity to criticize those people for needing food-stamps just to feed their families, calling them moochers, and freeloaders. You continually stomp on people, and then criticize them for complaining about your actions. It's the most pig-headed ideology ever constructed.

 

Haven't seen the Democrats talk about getting rid of it, have you?

 

Well, the administration's decision to stop charging low-level non-violent defendants with long-sentence offenses does represent a definite de-escalation of the drug war....

Still, no, not generally. Odd thing that, since that party has moved to such a 'radical far-left socialist' position.' Or so people keep saying....

 

Actually it is a problem of the administration's illegal activities. It is up to the administration to enforce the laws and it is the Congress that makes them. The administration cannot just ignore laws it does not like. This is a dangerous and impeachable offense but this Congress will never do such a thing.

 

Ipeachable offense? Or prosecutorial discretion? Bit of a fine point here.

 

GOP = Greed On Parade

 

That's a very simplistic view, and as long as you hold it, you'll continue to lose elections. You lose them because of your hostility toward minorities. Nobody is going to vote for somebody that hates them. It's really that simple. The Republicans have alienated and insulted every race, and ethnic group, they've waged their ridiculous war on women, and hate gays and lesbians. So you lose those votes and altogether they are a majority.

No they haven't. I'm as liberal as anybody out there and I've been self-employed my entire adult life. Nothing in liberalism has taken my incentive from doing exactly what I want to do and chose to do years ago. You have this fixed idea that there is some kind of psychological virus or something that saps peoples initiative. I guess you can delude yourself into thinking that, but it's nothing more than you buying into some contrived explanation for why your ideas don't work. "People don't like conservatism because they want free stuff". So you tell yourself that without every understanding your own flaws. It's always somebody else's fault.

This is an example of your narrow minded view. You actually think that a man wants to desert his family after he creates one, because the government will take care of them. Well, that's reason enough to leave a family isn't it? Of course that assumes that the person has zero emotional bond to his own kids. But the facts are that there higher divorce rates in the red states. Massachusetts for example has the lowest. Oklahoma has the highest.

80 Percent Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment: Survey
WASHINGTON — Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

"If you do try to go apply for a job, they're not hiring people, and they're not paying that much to even go to work," she said. Children, she said, have "nothing better to do than to get on drugs."

While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.

When you live in poverty, you don't make enough money to pay taxes. Didn't you know that?

Oh yeah. But it's not a matter of salesmanship. Every year that you lose you think its because you weren't conservative enough, so you double down on extremism as if that's where you went wrong. You weren't conservative enough. I could go into a lengthy explanation on what the problem is, but you'd never accept it anyway. The problem is with the ideology itself. For one thing its a pretty nasty concept, and it is fraught with a negative history of bigotry that it simply refuses to reject. People know this. That's why you lose with minorities. It's not because you haven't sold it well enough. You're attempting to sell bigotry and hate to people and they reject it. You actually think that your economic policies, which are lame to begin with and directly impact the poor, will matter more to people than the knowledge that you simply don't like certain people. I'll give you an example. John McCain said that the Republicans need to accept immigration reform or they'll lose the Hispanic vote. Do you not comprehend how stupid a remark that is? McCain is telegraphing to every Hispanic that it's not because you think it's the right thing to do...but it's because you want their vote, like these people can be bought. It's that kind of cynicism that turns people off. There nothing genuine or authentic in that kind of statement, and if you think you can simply pander to people like that, they'll spit in your face. Maybe not the Christian Right, but that's another story. Obviously they can't win you an election.

It's not in the messaging. It's the ideology itself. There is no basis to it. It can't demonstrate why its true. It makes one absolute statement after another, in black and white terms, and most rational people understand how fundamentally flawed that is. You love your values and your principles, but values and principles can never be demonstrated as true, and you fail to grasp that other people have their own values and principles but aren't attempting to force them on anybody else. So there is no basis to your basis. If you attempt to tell me what Conservatism is based on, you'll find yourself in a death spiral of infinite regress trying to justify each basis with yet another one, followed by another justification for yet another basis ad infinitum. When you try to cram that into an ideology, you end up with something without substance other than an appeal to tradition, and appeals to tradition are logical fallacies. Conservatism is authoritarian and yet appeals to authority are always invalid. The problem is Conservatism itself. It can't justify it's own principles. And people get that. So, the Conservative blames those that don't buy it, as if they're lepers and that turns people off even more.

There was once a time when Republicans were sane. They built things. They built the interstate highway system. That could never be done today. They flat out reject that kind of spending that would actually put people to work and improve our economy. So instead of putting people to work and improving the economy and the entire country...they try to repeal Obamacare and take 30 Million people off of any kind of insurance that could save their lives or the lives of their children that might have pre-existing condition. And then they have the audacity to tell people what's moral and what isn't.

Here's a starting point. Reject Racism. I mean condemn it and denounce it on the floor of congress. Introduce a Sense of Congress bill that condemns and denounces racism and watch who signs it and who doesn't. A Sense of Congress is not a binding law, but it tells America where our representatives stand on a given issue. Until you flat out reject racism...you're doomed to being a regional party of rednecks and racists and you'll lose the White House forever.

 

Nope. What brand name you want isn't the issue. It's the amount of that brand. This issue isn't over the product but the amount. He wants to ban gluttony, which happens to be one of the 7 deadly sins, if you're into Christian thinking.

Fine. But whether it's a Coke or a Pepsi or something else isn't the issue, and you should deal with the issue, and not something false.

Obviously not with you. If Bloomberg told people they can't drink a particular product, he'd probably be sued by the company that makes it. But of course that isn't happening so obviously you're mistaken even if you don't get it. Is this sinking in ??

I'm 100% factually correct. I'm surprised your beating this dead horse.

The ONLY difference is in the quantity. Not in the beverage itself. And it contains exactly the same beverage as the small cup. Exactly. It's the amount. Not the product itself.

Right. It comes in a large cup instead of a small cup. BFD. You order a large Coke or a small Coke. It's still Coke. Of course it's priced differently. You're buying a larger quantity of the same product. They charge you by the amount. Not because Coke has just magically changed into Sprite. When you go to the drive through and order a large drink, they ask you what kind. Coke, Pepsi, Sprite...etc. Do you order a large drink without identifying what drink you actually want? Of course not. You tell them you want a large Coke. Do you think that the size of the drink has somehow changed what it is?? Suppose you took that large Coke, and then poured it into 5 small cups. Would it still be Coke? Or is it now some other drink?

Nope. All you've determined is what size they can get. Not the drink itself. You do realize that you're not going to win this right? The drink doesn't change. The amount changes. If you buy a gallon of Milk, is it not Milk of you buy a quart? What is it? Has it suddenly changed into something else? By that logic, if I bought a ream of paper, that would not be paper if I bought a smaller amount of the very same thing. It's still paper no matter what quantity I buy. The amount doesn't alter the character of the product.

Because the issue isn't with Mt Dew. The issue is over the quantity of any drink of that nature. Bloomberg wants to restrict the amount of sugar drinks. Not the brand. Mountain Dew has nothing to do with this. The drink that is dispensed is the very same drink, whether it's in a Big Gulp or a small cup. Do you think that they draw from some other source? This is the Big Drink Spigot and this one over here is for small drink. Do you actually think that's what's going on here? This is why Republicans can't be trusted to evaluate anything. Bloomberg isn't telling you what to drink, he's telling you how much of that you can drink, which I personally feel is pretty nuts, but then I don't agree with Stop and Frisk which you don't seem to want to discuss. You must find that acceptable even though it comes from the same guy.

They are identical in quality. Just not in quantity. The quantity doesn't change the nature of the product one bit. It still tastes the same and contains the same ingredients only in greater quantity. You're getting a dose of sugar either way. The large drink has a greater amount of sugar, because it's a greater amount of the same fluid.

No. It isn't the same as a full tank. It's one gallon as compared to 20. It's still gas though. If I go to the station and put in $10 bucks of gas, does that do the same thing for my car as filling it up? Yeah. If I start the engine the car runs, just not as far. I find it astonishing that you are actually attempting to suggest that if you buy a full tank of gas that it's somehow a different thing than the guy that puts $10 bucks of the very same thing in his car. It's like going home and saying I put gas in the car...and because you didn't fill the tank, your wife says' you didn't put gas in the car. Or...I bought a Coke. I couldn't buy a Big Gulp because Bloomberg has this law, so I didn't buy a Coke. I bought something else. If you buy a small Coke, or a Big Coke...you're still buying Coke. They don't have a separate fountain for Big Cokes. They draw from the same vat.

 

Absolutely I have. Apparently your bubble doesn't tell you that. I don't know a Democrat that doesn't want to dump the dumbass war on drugs. That was always a Republican thing. Very Conservative. It's liberals that are pushing to get laws on pot changed. Not conservatives. Libertarians are on board with it too.

 

"GOP = Greed On Parade"

Taxcutter asks:
Taxpayers objecting to free stuff for moochers constitutes "greed?"

 

OK no we are seeing where you are coming from...so you think big gulpers are sinners..lol
and lastly....since you say a large coke and small coke are identical why are they priced differently if they are the same soda?

 

Explain obamas 63% increase in debt since the point he called Bushs debt unpatriotic and irresponsible then?
Ill post the video if you are not aware of its existence.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/behind-the-curtain-eve-of-destruction-95594.html




It is almost impossible to find an establishment Republican in town who’s not downright morose about the 2013 that has been and is about to be. Most dance around it in public, but they see this year as a disaster in the making, even if most elected Republicans don’t know it or admit it.

Several influential Republicans told us the party is actually in a worse place than it was Nov. 7, the day after the disastrous election. This is their case:

• The party is hurting itself even more with the very voters they need to start winning back: Hispanics, blacks, gays, women and swing voters of all stripes.

• The few Republicans who stood up and tried to move the party ahead were swatted into submission: Speaker John Boehner on fiscal matters and Sen. Marco Rubio on immigration are the poster boys for this.

• Republicans are all flirting with a fall that could see influential party voices threatening to default on the debt or shut down the government — and therefore ending all hopes of proving they are not insane when it comes to governance

These Republicans came into the year exceptionally hopeful the party would finally wise up and put immigration and irresponsible rhetoric and governing behind them. Instead, Republicans dug a deeper hole. This probably doesn’t matter for 2014, because off-year elections are notoriously low-turnout affairs where older whites show up in disproportionate numbers. But elite Republican strategists and donors tell us they are increasingly worried the past nine months make 2016 look very bleak — unless elected GOP officials in Washington change course, and fast.

The blown opportunities and self-inflected wounds are adding up:

• Hispanics. Nearly every Republican who stumbled away from 2012 promised to quit alienating the fastest-growing demographic in American politics. So what have they done since? Alienated Hispanic voters — again.

It is easy to dismiss as anomaly some of the nasty rhetoric — such as Rep. Don Young calling immigrants “wetbacks” or Rep. Steve King suggesting the children of illegal immigrants are being used as drug mules. But it’s impossible for most Hispanics not to walk away from the immigration debate believing the vast majority of elected Republicans are against a pathway to citizenship.

House Republicans are dragging their feet on immigration reform — a measure that most Republican leaders agree is essential to getting back in the game with Hispanic voters before the next presidential election. House leaders say there’s no chance they’ll bring up the broad measure that has passed the Senate. Instead, they plan a piecemeal, one-bill-a-month approach that is likely to suffocate comprehensive reform.

Some Republicans are praying that leaders will find a way to jam through something President Barack Obama can sign. But current signs point to failure. The House will be tied up all fall over fiscal issues — and there’s unlikely to be time to litigate immigration reform even if most members want to, which they don’t.

“If Republicans don’t pass immigration reform, it’ll be a black cloud that’ll follow the party around through the next presidential election and possibly through the decade,” warned Scott Reed, senior political strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

(PHOTOS: Senators up for election in 2014)

• African Americans. Republicans hurt themselves with other minorities by responding lamely — and, in some cases, offensively — to the Trayvon Martin case, and to the Supreme Court ruling that gutted Voting Rights Act protections.

“You can perform an autopsy until you’re blue in the face,” said Michael Steele, the former Republican National Committee chairman, now with Purple Nation Solutions. “But if the people you’re trying to reach have no faith or trust in the words you are saying, it doesn’t matter.”

It would be easy to dismiss Steele as bitter because he was forced out of the RNC and has feuded with his successor, Reince Priebus, since. But he has done something few Republicans have: risen to the top of American politics as a black Republican. On voting rights, Steele said, the party needs to actively deal with African-American complaints about voter suppression and impediments to voters’ registration. “We need to be saying: ‘We respect, yes, the rule of law. But we also respect your constitutional right to vote,’” he said. “We just can’t sit back and rely on, ‘Oh, gee, you know, we freed the slaves.’”

Steele was even more incensed about Republican reaction to the Martin case. “What African-Americans heard was insensitive,” he said. “Republicans gave a very sterile or pro forma response. There was no sense of even expressing regret or remorse to Trayvon’s mother.”

Republicans tell us privately that pressure from conservative media only encourages their public voices to say things that offend black audiences.

• Gays. Polls show the Republicans’ traditional view is rapidly becoming a minority view in politics, but the party has done nothing this year to make itself more appealing to persuadable gay voters.

“We come off like we’re angry and frustrated that more of our fellow Americans aren’t angry and frustrated,” said a senior Mitt Romney campaign official who asked not to be named.

Republicans did show progress in the form of restraint, with many leaders offering a muted reaction to a pair of Supreme Court rulings related to same-sex marriage. In the past, many would have taken to the airwaves to condemn what they see as the crumbling culture around them. A number of top Republicans are counseling a more libertarian approach, letting people live their lives and letting states, or better the church, set the rules for marriage at the local level.

(Also on POLITICO: Gay marriage issue entangles Gov. Tom Corbett)

• Swing voters. Republicans are in jeopardy of convincing voters they simply cannot govern. Their favorable ratings are terrible and getting worse. But there is broad concern it could go from worse to an unmitigated disaster this fall. Most urgently, according to a slew of key Republicans we interviewed, conservative GOP senators have got to give up their insistence that the party allow the government to shut down after Sept. 30 if they don’t get their way on defunding Obamacare.

The quixotic drive — led by Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — is part of Rubio’s effort to make up with the conservative base after he was stunned by the backlash over his deal-making on immigration. Pollsters say the funding fight makes Republicans look even more obstructionist and causes voters to worry about the effect a shutdown would have on their own finances.

Whit Ayres of North Star Opinion Research, who has been drilling down on this issue for the conservative public-opinion group Resurgent Republic, said: “Shutting down the government is the one way that Republicans can turn Obamacare from a political advantage to a political disadvantage in 2014.



Good to see Republicans in self destruction mode.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

 

You actually think you "see where I'm coming from". hehe. Here's a clue...You don't. What I think of "Big Gulpers" is irrelevant. This issue has nothing to do about what I think or don't think about it. It's about your totally inaccurate description of what's taking place. Get your facts together. >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<< That's the issue. Like the typical Repug from Conservistan, you create your own version of things that have nothing to do with reality. I can't believe that you don't understand why one drink of the same thing costs more than the other. Why does a gallon of milk cost more than a quart? Is the Milk in the gallon different than the milk in the quart? If you poured a glass of milk would you know the difference if it came from a gallon or a quart? Same with a Coke. Could you tell the difference between Coke from a Big Gulp and Coke from a small cup? What is the exact difference? Do they call it something else? Does it come from a different plant? Do you tell people, this isn't a Coke. It's a small Coke. I can tell. Its a different product. Of course not. The price is different because you're getting more of the same stuff. They charge more because you're getting more. It's no different with Coke or any other commodity or product that offers the very same exact product in different sizes.

Bloomberg has never told you what you can or can't buy regarding the product itself. He wouldn't do that. And that's not what this is about. He's going overboard and telling you how much of that product you can consume because he thinks that this kind of consumption leads to problems like obesity and diabetes which creates higher health costs for everybody. Essentially he thinks that your pigheadedness creates additional expenses for everyone else. So everyone must pay for your selfish appetites. That's his view, and you can argue with him. He also thinks that Stop and Frisk is a great idea even though it stomps all over the 4th Amendment rights of people and has its entire basis rooted in racial profiling. Bloomberg is a piece of work, and he's in desperate need of retirement.

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

A great post. Thanks for shining a light on the problems within the GOP. One would think that if they were smart they'd actually listen to the people who have issues with them, but instead, they attempt to convince themselves that they're absolutely correct in their views and it's just a matter of better salesmanship. You can't sell a broken product. You can't convince people that it's going to be good for them, when you refuse to address their concerns.

The 2014 mid-terms may turn out to be much worse for them as well. The Democrats all saw how sitting on the sidelines in 2010 turned into a disaster and will mobilize to prevent another similar disaster. That election caused the gridlock and total non-cooperation that we see today. The only way to change that is to vote those people out and retake the House and keep the Senate which will be their mission.

Your comments outline problems that they simply refuse to recognize, and willfully ignoring them is done at their own peril. You can't ask the question, "Where did we go wrong" and then ignore the answer to the question.

Doubling down on your mistakes doesn't present a winning formula. The Republicans need to recognize that their extremism is rejected. Their problem is that they have people that could care less about how they're viewed by the electorate, because they stand on principles that they can't even demonstrate are true. These are the ideologues that have taken over the party, and have no problems with driving it into the ground. They'll take great pride in their "take no prisoners approach" even when their house burns to the ground after they've poured gasoline on it and lit the match. And when it does, they'll blame everyone else for the disaster that they created. They're incapable of governing, and the public wants people that can govern. That isn't an important attribute for them since they hate the government so much, that actually governing is the last thing on their mind. Destroying the government is what they want to do, and the public knows it, and rejects it.

 

What does your question have to do with the post you quoted? I don't get the connection. It's totally out of right field.

Anyway, since your shifting gears...Bush senior fought against supply-side debt, so the Republicans didn't support him and he lost to Clinton, who put an end to supply-side economics. G. W. Bush brought it back full strength, with V.P. Cheney saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." If you think Cheney or Reagan is some kind of hero, then why are you suddenly concerned over the debt when he told you that Reagan proved they don't matter? Was Reagan wrong, or was Cheney wrong? Or were both of them wrong? Currently supply-siders are in full control of the Republican party. Obama's debt is a continuation of that trend and neither Bush nor Obama are directly responsible for that acceleration. It happened because of the recession. Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008—but that had little to do with his choices.

Recessions cut tax revenues—in this case, dramatically. That accounts for nearly half of the deficit. So blaming Obama for the full deficit is like blaming him for not raising the tax rate to keep tax revenues up. Most of the increased spending is automatic increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security payments for early retirement. Very little of it is from stimulus spending, and that's over.

If you're actually interested in this, you might want to read The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7#ixzz2cLBjt5IM

http://www.businessinsider.com/whos-responsible-for-budget-deficit-2012-8

Nobody is left off the hook, and that includes us. The voters.

 

Umm where did I blame Obama for the full deficit. (strawman poster alert! Warning! Warning!) My post is definitely not out in left field. Seeing as how you are so quick to point out the greed of the GOP party its perfectly acceptable for me to remind you of the facts. Which is, Obama (the greedy grime he is) increased the debt by over 63% from a figure he himself called unpatriotic and irresponsible.
Would you like the video? Yes Or No.

blah blah Reagan. How long has he been dead for now? Bottom line Owebama increased a debt he himself called unpatriotic by 63%. Reagan has been dead for years and had nothing to do with what Owebama chose to do when he was elected president. Please stop the strawman arguments.

 

It's apparent you didn't actually read a word of Adagio's post.

 

LOL ummm go back and read this post. Reminder - Personal attacks are not acceptable.
Secondly. I know that a glass of milk costs less than a gallon because they are different. If they were not different then the price would be the same. A liter of coke is different than 4oz coke and nothing you can ever say is going to change that. If I say you can buy a 4 oz coke but not a 1 liter of coke, I have just instructed you as to which soda you can and cannot have.
Lastly, you were the one that started this beating of the dead horse by completely over-reacting to my word choice. I'm sorry, I forgot to add the word "size" in front of the word "soda". The only complete over-reaction here was started by you. Anyone reading this can feel free to go back and see where it started.
Now if you'll excuse me, Im going to go get a beer....ohhh wait er um I mean a Blue Moon taken from the bottom right drawer of my refrigerator, uncapped with a standard bottle opener that came with my grilling set, served in a chilled 16oz glass that I will be drinking on my back porch where it is currently 69 degrees Fahrenheit not Celsius. I plan on drinking this slowly over a period of ~20 minutes. (in case anyone was confused about which beverage I am drinking)

 

Obama increased the debt from 2008 by 63%. He did this on top of a number he himself called unpatriotic and irresponsible. There is nothing you can say to disprove it. Its a fact.

 

1. All by himself? That's impressive.
2. OK, now think back to 2009 and figure out WHY. Hint: It has something to do with the worst financial crisis we've endured since the Great Depression.

Meaningless blather about "Obama debt" is useless without taking into consideration a. the circumstances under which the debt Obama was criticizing was accrued, and b. the circumstances under which the debt has increased under Obama.

 

Of course. And most on the Right don't want to go back there... because they don't want to remember HOW and through WHOM we reached that 'financial' situation in 2009.

Your assertions are spot-on!!