Tearloch7 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Well ending the war on drugs along with the foreign ones would be great IMO. He may be anti-abortion but the supreme court isn't so it wouldn't matter though it's obviously a concern. He might be anti gun control but he's pro state rights and most gun control laws are on the state level. There's places that are strict and places that are not and heck in some places there's already enough Ak47s out there illegally that they have a street name! But hey what good would it be being hyper partisan and non objective if you couldn't fear monger? Ah for the good old days when that was just a method of the evangelical right.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I'm the teabagger gun nut though remember? Put down the knife. I'd point out how once again you're in way over your head, but clearly it hasn't hit you yet, as mentioned: This was a Democrat written budget: http://budget.senate.../fiscalyear2009 ^ Hardly a guy on this hilarious "Blue Dog Coalition" given how many Democrats sided with him. The 2008 Senate Vote: http://www.senate.go...on=2&vote=00142 The 2008 House Vote: http://clerk.house.g...008/roll318.xml This was the 2008 budget that Bush signed.. written by Democrats, almost unanimously passed by Democrats, with 1 Senate Democrat voting No, 14 House Democrats voting No. Republicans primarily voted against it. While Obama didn't have his own budget revisions, he also can sign bills which automatically add to the budget, and I should mention had a fricken Democrat controlled Congress, filibuster proof for 4-6 months, nearly filibuster proof for 2 years yet added more debt in 2 years than Bush's entire first term. He could have amended the budget much sooner if he thought his own party's Congress was spending too much, he had all the clout necessary to do so. Can't blame Bush for that. Hey, flame away, call me teabagger in your typical passive aggressive fashion, make me out to be a Bush lover, that's your best shot at trying to bring me down in this fight. Your terrible arguments are getting served up on a platter for the forum and your buddies to see. I have far more knowledge on this subject than you do, if I were you I'd invest more into your study of "Bush teabagger budget 2009" Google searches, or at least learning what humility means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I'm the teabagger gun nut though remember? Put down the knife. I'd point out how once again you're in way over your head, but clearly it hasn't hit you yet, as mentioned: This was a Democrat written budget: http://budget.senate.../fiscalyear2009 ^ Hardly a guy on this hilarious "Blue Dog Coalition" given how many Democrats sided with him. The 2008 Senate Vote: http://www.senate.go...on=2&vote=00142 The 2008 House Vote: http://clerk.house.g...008/roll318.xml This was the 2008 budget that Bush signed.. written by Democrats, almost unanimously passed by Democrats, with 1 Senate Democrat voting No, 14 House Democrats voting No. Republicans primarily voted against it. While Obama didn't have his own budget revisions, he also can sign bills which automatically add to the budget, and I should mention had a fricken Democrat controlled Congress, filibuster proof for 4-6 months, nearly filibuster proof for 2 years yet added more debt in 2 years than Bush's entire first term. He could have amended the budget much sooner if he thought his own party's Congress was spending too much, he had all the clout necessary to do so. Can't blame Bush for that. Hey, flame away, call me teabagger in your typical passive aggressive fashion, make me out to be a Bush lover, that's your best shot at trying to bring me down in this fight. Your terrible arguments are getting served up on a platter for the forum and your buddies to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Your argument was regarding the 2009 fiscal year. Since when was 2008 under Bush ever an issue, since Obama wasn't sworn in till January of 2009? Terrible arguments?? Why don't you actually stick to one instead of hopping and flopping all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 You are throwing a fit about the 2009 fiscal budget, which if you bothered reading what I cited, was written by the Democratic Congress and passed almost unanimously by Democrats, then signed by Bush in mid 2008. I don't have the time to give you a complete education on government, for that I'd suggest a class since you know so little, and evidently Google and Wiki can't teach you fast enough. If that to you is all over the place, I'd suggest popping a Ritalin and/or Xanax so you can calm down and focus. Nope, no teabagger here. I know, however, being wrong won't stop you from perpetuating myths, and I also know that disagreeing with you leads to you throwing a hissy fit. Like I said, Republicans didn't even need a supermajority during Bush's term to get done the things they wanted. Maybe you won't fault Democrats for not taking advantage of their opportunities, or, well, faulting them for anything else, but I love reading these excuses like Democrats needed a plurality of sorts in order to get anything done because the evil minority Republicans were in their way. They got their 2009 fiscal year budget which Bush signed, oh wait, Bush's fault. Or maybe you'll make enough excuses for Democrats that you'll back yourself off a cliff? Waiting for something more innovative than calling me a teabagger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I wasn't arguing about or for the Democrats in Congress. Their reference was for the larger argument about Obama's 2009 fiscal year, which you took on a tangent, because your teabagging brain can't handle actual facts which makes it jump around trying to find footholds in tangential arguments. And I'm fine acknowledging you as a teabagger......since the teabag fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Ignorance is bliss it seems .. "keep your hands off my Medicare" .. oh wait, I get Healthcare cheaper elsewhere? .. "pack up the van, Elsie .. we're headin' north to free-dumb" .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Paul Ryan On Medicare Cut: Obama Did It First WARREN, Ohio — Republican vice presidential contender Paul Ryan says he never would have included a $700 billion Medicare cut in his budget if President Barack Obama hadn't done it first. "He put those cuts there," Ryan said Thursday, responding to a reporter's question while eating a hot dog in a restaurant. "We would never have done it in the first place." Medicare, the health care program for tens of millions of seniors, has become a key issue in the race for the White House. The Wisconsin congressman is perhaps best known for authoring a controversial budget plan that would transform Medicare into a voucher-like system. He and Romney say the change is needed to preserve the popular program for future generations. The Republican candidates have launched a new strategy recently to criticize Obama for taking more than $700 billion in Medicare funds to help pay for his health care overhaul. "The president was talking about Medicare yesterday. I'm excited about this," Ryan said during a morning campaign stop in North Canton. "This is a debate we want to have, this is a debate we need to have and this is a debate we're going to win." But Ryan did not mention that his own budget proposal included the same cut. A reporter pressed him on the issue during an impromptu stop at a local hot dog restaurant. Ryan pointed out that he voted to repeal the president's health care law, which would have repealed the Medicare cut. The Senate did not take up the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Ryan should seriously plead the fifth and let his campaign guys do all the talking. Surely his stomach can fit a few more hot dogs. He could always pretend his mouth is full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 So if Democrats are responsible for writing the fiscal year 2009 budget, which Republicans overwhelmingly voted against yet failed because they didn't have Congressional majority, and Obama had Democrats write the bills to allocate him even more funds to spend, it looks like well over 75% of the blame for fiscal year 2009 can go to Democrats, well over 50% of that going to Obama, since he was President for 8 months of fiscal year 2009. If Bush somehow took over Democrats minds in 2008 to write the fiscal year 2009 budget, then Obama in 2009 could have easily un-done it ALSO having Democrats to write bills for him. You're so lost in your teabagger / Blame Bush for Everything mode you can't even make a coherent argument. But most of your post is personal attacks, so if you're done debating and just want to focus on your Dr. Phail personal analyses (i.e. flaming), you can join Tearloch7 and Ratiocinator/pucklovinicehockey on ignore so I don't get banned getting into a pointless flame war. I might keep you off, however, if you can actually make me laugh with your flaming. The anything-that-disagrees-with-me = teabagger angle has been played for years now, highly unoriginal, and unfunny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Bush set the precedent for a number of heinous policies that were heavily criticized by Obama like the NSA-AT&T issue, Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, signing statements (a mirror image of Clinton's line item veto which last I checked was ruled unconstitutional), and so on, that Obama has instead followed to the T. Bush's fiscal policies worsened as his term went on, and Obama was like Bush the 3rd term. The logical path to follow is getting the US's fiscal house in order, then implementing a single payer system where the cost of healthcare can be accounted for and appropriated. At the moment throwing a single payer system onto the budget mess that the US had would be just as detrimental, the private healthcare boon called Obamacare is far worse given it doesn't even address the insanely high cost of services compared to other first world nations and perpetuates the terrible private healthcare system. So, to crawl before you can walk, budget (i.e. deficits and liabilities) needs to be solved first as an immediate issue (an insolvent government can't do much), then once those politicians prove they can be somewhat trustworthy with that kind of government expansion, then universal. Don't know why you're even giving him the light of day. Not worth it. No discussion value whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I do admit I find humor in what others think of US policy when they dont even live there. Its does give a different point of view. I steel myself against the temptation to mock. Your post is again spot on. Obama campaigned one way then simply carried on the Bush foreign policy to a T . I think even Rumsfeld would blush. Even Cheney makes no complaint about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 He did it fiiiiirst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 This is ridiculous - everyone in here has been warned about personal attacks yet, they continue. To set the record straight, when a report is filed the expectation is that you allow for mods to intervene and, in that, step back. But if both sides stand in there swinging, this is the only answer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.