Obama's Line In The Sand
President Obama held the last press conference of his first term in office today. He used the opportunity to clearly stake out his position on the looming debt ceiling fight. Obama's position: he's not going to have this fight. Period. Congress can either pass a bill he can sign, or we're going to hit the debt ceiling. Either way, Obama will not treat the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip in the ongoing partisan struggle over the federal budget. Obama will refuse to negotiate over the debt ceiling at all, and is not even entertaining ideas of any sort of "Plan B."
President Obama was astonishingly clear. What happens now is going to be interesting, because Obama may have changed the whole narrative in this debate. If it works, Obama will emerge from the fight stronger politically. If it doesn't work, Obama risks being blamed himself for a debt ceiling catastrophe by the public. If Obama backs down and does haggle over the debt ceiling, then he will disappoint his base and any future ultimatum he issues will be laughed at Republicans.
It's a gutsy move, in a very high-stakes game. What Obama didn't really highlight in his press conference is that, in the next two months or so, America is facing not one more fiscal crisis but in reality three. Others will make this case for him: Republicans will still have plenty of "leverage" and plenty of dire circumstances to threaten even if the debt ceiling is taken off the table. There will be two other gigantic budgetary battles to resolve, so they can fight on those battlefields instead (for the record: the "sequester" cuts that were kicked down the road for only two months, and the "continuing resolution" that is going to be necessary to fund a budget for the rest of the fiscal year). Republicans can threaten to shut down the federal government in these battles -- a dire enough "hostage" for them to take, to put it into their terms -- and yet even this won't be playing Russian roulette with the entire world's economy. Which is what the Republican debt ceiling threats truly amount to, in very blunt terms.
Obama is still leaving these doors open. While he (understandably) didn't come right out and say "Republicans will be able to shut the government down if they really want to -- twice, in fact -- before the end of March," Obama will still have to fight these two other budgetary fights. Removing the debt ceiling crisis from the equation doesn't mean there won't be a big philosophical debate on cutting spending, deficit reduction, entitlement reform, and all the rest of the Republicans' "to do" list. The other two fights come with their own built-in deadlines, so Republicans can play the whole "we're going to take this until one minute before midnight" game not only once again, but twice again. The House and the Senate can have plenty of bitterly-fought negotiations, and they'll have plenty of details to argue over.
It would have been amusing if Obama had directly addressed this, and said something along the lines of: "Isn't threatening to shut down the federal government enough for you guys? Isn't it bad enough that you're playing "chicken" with that hot potato? Do you really need to use as a hostage not only our country's economy, but the whole world's economy?" But he really didn't need to go that far. Others can make this point for him, because he staked out his position in clear enough terms as it was.
Obama has now taken the position that we're going to have those political budgetary fights without holding the world's economy hostage while doing so. That is his bright line in the sand. He framed this several times during his press conference as: "Either Congress pays its bills or it doesn't." No middle ground. He further went on to say he'd consider anything Congress sent him, saying: "if John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think that they can come up with a plan that somehow meets their criteria that they’ve set for why they will -- when they will raise the debt ceiling, they're free to go ahead and try." In other words: send him a bill. If they have some great plan they want to push, then set it down into a bill's language, and pass it through both houses of Congress. But if they can't do that, then they have only two options: pass a clean debt ceiling bill, or default. In other words, if Republicans can't get anything acceptable through the Senate, then they are the ones who need a "Plan B" -- a bill which raises the debt ceiling with no strings attached.
President Obama, by holding a press conference before this whole process even really gets started (it should come as no surprise to anyone that Congress is currently on yet another multi-week vacation), is leading from the bully pulpit this time around. He is framing the debate on his terms, quite forcefully. Obama characterized the debate by boldly stating: "America is not a deadbeat nation," and went on to swear "what I will not do is to have that negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people." That is language everyone can understand, and it truly captures the scope of the Republican tactics. Obama used a metaphor he's been using for a while at one point during the speech, which is perhaps the best way to introduce the public to the argument:
Everybody here understands this. I mean, this is not a complicated concept. You don't go out to dinner and then eat all you want, and then leave without paying the check. And if you do, you're breaking the law. And Congress should think about it the same way that the American people do. You don't -- now, if Congress wants to have a debate about maybe we shouldn't go out to dinner next time, maybe we should go to a more modest restaurant, that's fine. That's a debate that we should have. But you don't say, in order for me to control my appetites, I'm going to not pay the people who already provided me services, people who already lent me the money. That's not showing any discipline. All that's doing is not meeting your obligations. You can't do that.
And that's not a credible way to run this government. We've got to stop lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis, when there's this clear path ahead of us that simply requires some discipline, some responsibility and some compromise. That's where we need to go. That's how this needs to work.
Obama doesn't just want to win this argument, he wants to utterly reshape the argument as one that America just cannot afford to have. Politically "winning" this fight for him now means not only assuring the world that America will pay the bills she's already racked up, but assuring the financial community that we're never going to use this as a political hostage ever again.
It's a risky strategy, because anything less than such a sweeping resolve is now going to be seen as weakening Obama's political hand. But he raised these stakes on his own, so we'll see how it all plays out. Obama has two high-profile events in the next few weeks, and you can bet he's going to use them to make his case on this issue. I expect to see his "going out to dinner" metaphor (or one like it) in both his Inaugural Address and in the State Of The Union speech.
For the past few weeks, many have been playing the parlor game of toying with the idea of Obama pulling some sort of ace out of his sleeve in the debt ceiling showdown (full disclosure: I've engaged in this game myself, a few times). This has led to discussions of the Fourteenth Amendment, trillion-dollar coins, and scrip (or "IOUs"). The White House has been shooting these ideas down, one by one. They insist that they don't have a Plan B, don't need a Plan B, and aren't going to use any Plan B options whatsoever. This is (as they see it) going to actually increase pressure on Republicans to come up with something before the deadline. If there is no safety net, it's going to be a catastrophic fall, to put it another way.
The strategy is bold, but risky. Obama may not solve this argument for all presidents for all time, but he may also get what he wants this time around -- a clean debt ceiling bill. If he can build public support and awareness of his position in the next few weeks -- before the real negotiating even gets underway -- then Republicans may just decide they'll fight on the other two budgetary battlegrounds rather than this particular one. Some on the right are already advocating "taking the issue off the table" by just passing a clean bill. Wall Street and Big Business are certainly on the side of not defaulting, and likely will make their voices heard on Capitol Hill to Republicans, in no uncertain terms. John Boehner may decide this fight simply isn't worth it.
In other words, Obama could win a big political victory on the issue, if things go his way. If he can get Republicans over to his side of the stark line he just drew in the sand, he will definitely have shown leadership on the issue. In his press conference today, he certainly sounded like a man who was not going to give in on the issue. We'll see how firm he stands in the upcoming weeks, but if today was any indication, Obama is not interested in "hostage negotiations" this time around.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
We'll see how firm he stands in the upcoming weeks, but if today was any indication, Obama is not interested in "hostage negotiations" this time around.
Which is rather ironic since it was Obama and Democrats who were the ones "taking hostages" when we had a Republican as POTUS..
This is why I simply can't get all indignant over all the rhetoric flying back and forth..
Because the way the rhetoric flows is SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on which Party holds the presidency....
When we have a Republican POTUS raising the debt ceiling is "irresponsible" and "a failure of leadership"...
When we have a Democrat POTUS, raising the debt ceiling is vital and not open for ANY discussion..
Hooo huuummmmmm What's on TV tonight...??? :^/
Michale
You miss an important point about the way Congress works, Michale.
It's OK to vote against a necessary and important bill (e.g. raising the debt ceiling) if it is guaranteed to pass. The debt ceiling was routinely passed with a handful of no/protest votes.
It's only this most recent Congress that have actually threatened this particular path, but that changes the meaning of voting against it.
It's OK to vote against a necessary and important bill (e.g. raising the debt ceiling) if it is guaranteed to pass. The debt ceiling was routinely passed with a handful of no/protest votes.
While it's true that Democrats never actually prevented the Debt Ceiling from being raised, it's also factually accurate to say that they opposed it being raised, albeit not as loudly and as forcefully as Republicans have..
In other words, Democrats were against it before they were for it..
However, it's ALSO factually accurate to say that Republicans have ALSO never actually prevented the Debt Ceiling from being raised..
In other words, Republicans were for it before they were against it.
The ONLY difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republican's efforts are a lot more organized and effective than the Democrat's efforts
It's only this most recent Congress that have actually threatened this particular path,
In the Bush years, Democrats "threatened" as well..
Just no one believed their threat because, par for the course, they were unable to keep their members in line...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that Republicans are RIGHT to oppose the raising of the Debt Ceiling w/o instituting some fiscal discipline.
Once again, I am gabberlasted that everyone here thinks it's perfectly OK to raise a teenager's credit limit time and time again, when it is obvious to anyone with more than two brain-cells to rub together that they have a spending problem..
"What!?? You MAXED out your credit cards again!!!??? Oh, OK.. I'll raise your limit, but try to spend within your means, OK?"
Yea.. THAT's effective parenting..... NOT :^/
And, for the record, Democrats were ALSO right to oppose raising the Debt Limit during the Bush years.
Michale
One thing I'm not sure Republicans realize is that there are a lot of people with money in this thing called the stock market.
This thing that Republicans keep trying to crash with idiotic political moves.
I'm not sure these people are going to like all of these maneuvers. I know that I for one think it's pretty stupid to keep trying to crash the market and take down the government because you don't like poor people.
-David
David,
You assume that the Republicans will get blamed.
You assume much...
It's also obvious as to the spin of your comment.
Republicans aren't trying to crash the stock market and they don't hate poor people..
They are trying to rein in a government that is out of control in it's spending..
So, let's lay it on the table..
Do you think our government needs to get it's exorbitant and orgasmic spending under control??
yes or no...
Michale
CW,
For the past few weeks, many have been playing the parlor game of toying with the idea of Obama pulling some sort of ace out of his sleeve in the debt ceiling showdown (full disclosure: I've engaged in this game myself, a few times)
He does have an ace up his sleeve: the Republican party is beholden to the rich, wealthy Americans who own it, run it and set their policy.
The debt ceiling is different than the fiscal cliff in that that fiscal cliff might have damaged the economy but done little to affect the wealthy; the debt ceiling is very different. These rich people who run the Republican party have little stomach for wiping out their stocks/hyper inflation/devaluing the dollar/wiping out the value of their assets that are likely to follow (the far more serious and stupid move) of not raising the debt ceiling.
"What!?? You MAXED out your credit cards again!!!??? Oh, OK.. I'll raise your limit, but try to spend within your means, OK?"
Lolol I don't know how many times I see such blatant mis-understanding of what the debt ceiling is. The debt ceiling refers to spending THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN AGREED. It is nothing to do with future spending or what future spending you might do.
The analogy is more like: 'Hey Timmy remember that college fund that Mr Clinton was saving for you? Well Mr Bush decided to blow it all on 500 new X54 bombers. Except the bill for the latest delivery of 100 bombers just arrived and he has decided he doesn't want to pay it - which will crash the entire world economy and cost America it's credit rating status. The good news is that College is going to be more affordable though, as the value of the dollar is about to plummet - yaaaaay!'
These rich people who run the Republican party have little stomach for wiping out their stocks/hyper inflation/devaluing the dollar/wiping out the value of their assets that are likely to follow (the far more serious and stupid move) of not raising the debt ceiling.
Yep. Saying we're not going to pay our bills would do some serious damage to the stock market. I'm guessing there's a lot of conservatives and businesses that don't want this to happen.
Newt Gingrich is out in front of this (though it's funny how he says Obama is bullying Republicans):
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/newt-obama-bullying-house-gop-86206.html
Poor Republicans ... always the victims of evil liberal plots :)
-David
Do you think our government needs to get it's exorbitant and orgasmic spending under control?
Talk about spin ... Exorbitant? Orgasmic? Heheh.
If you define the economy as the problem, spending is a second tier issue. Cutting spending further will not help the slowly recovering economy. In fact, it's liable to hurt it.
Don't be silly David. Spending is a problem when there is a Democratic President; when the President is Republican (like the top 3 biggest spending Presidents of the last 30 years) it's not a problem at all.
It's called 'Republogic101'
David,
Yep. Saying we're not going to pay our bills would do some serious damage to the stock market.
That's strange.. Because the Democrats weren't too concerned about the stock market when they opposed raising the Debt Ceiling under Bush...
On the other hand, how ironic is it that Democrats are worried about Wall Street..
Since when?? :^)
If you define the economy as the problem, spending is a second tier issue. Cutting spending further will not help the slowly recovering economy. In fact, it's liable to hurt it.
And yet, there is plenty of evidence that the exorbitant and orgasmic spending of the Democrats is not doing any good...
Are Americans better off in the here and now??
No....
Democrats epitomize the definition of insanity. Trying the same thing over and over and over again, hoping for a different result...
Michale
When you consider that Obama has more than doubled the debt in 3 years than Reagan and Bush COMBINED, (Documented fact) do you REALLY think that spending is not a problem???
Seriously!!???
That's the problem with Democrats. They can't even admit they have a problem..
The first sign of addiction...
Michale
Since you obviously missed the question the first time, let me ask it again..
Do you think our government needs to get it's exorbitant and orgasmic spending under control??
yes or no...
Michale
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
-Barack Obama
You got it from the mouth of your own "lord and savior" (a direct quote)....
Is Extreme Hypocrisy a requirement to be a Democrat??
It sure seems that way.... :^/
Michale
It's funny.. Whenever I throw Obama's own words out there, everyone disappears.. :D
Michale...
Do you think our government needs to get it's exorbitant and orgasmic spending under control??
No. Absolutely not. Not in a million years. In fact, it is the exact opposite: the time for a Gov to spend is when things are bad; the time for Gov to cut back is when things are good.
If Republican Presidents (not Democrat Presidents, who actually follow this to the T) of the last 30 years had followed this mantra you wouldn't be in the mess you are just now...
One exception: Reagan. He spent heavily during the recession but the problem is he didn't stop spending nor produce revenue when times where good afterward.
Is Extreme Hypocrisy a requirement to be a Democrat??
Really? Name one time in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE USA that Democrats actually blocked raising the debt ceiling so that the USA couldn't pay it's bills and the markets crashed - like (some) (retarded) Republicans are actually considering doing.
<<>>>
Lol that's supposed to say [CHIRRRRRRRRRRRRRP] at the end in reference to the fact that never in the history of the USA has a party not voted (blocked) the raising of the debt ceiling.
Lol that's supposed to say [CHIRRRRRRRRRRRRRP] at the end in reference to the fact that never in the history of the USA has a party not voted (blocked) the raising of the debt ceiling.
Because the Democrats weren't too concerned about the stock market when they opposed raising the Debt Ceiling under Bush.
As was pointed out quite well earlier, there's a big difference between voting 'no' on something when you know it is going to pass as a form of protest and voting 'no' on something when you know it is going to crash the economy.
It's funny.. Whenever I throw Obama's own words out there, everyone disappears.. :D
See above.
Are Americans better off in the here and now?
Yep. Sure looks that way.
-David
As was pointed out quite well earlier, there's a big difference between voting 'no' on something when you know it is going to pass as a form of protest and voting 'no' on something when you know it is going to crash the economy.
It's only "different" because it's Democrats..
Sitting in the politically agnostic chair, there is no difference..
Something you would readily agree with if you sat in the same chair..
Yep. Sure looks that way.
That's your opinion..
An opinion NOT shared by the majority of Americans.
It's also an opinion solely and completely based on that almighty '-D' at the end of Obama's name...
Michale
Btw Michale is kind of right on this one. A lot of votes on debt ceiling increases in the past were on party lines. The difference is that no party in power of the House/Senate was stupid enough to block vote no as an entire party.
But he is right: if Democrats were stupid enough to vote no to a debt ceiling raise in the past they need to acknowledge that SOME Republicans are going to be equally stupid to vote no to a debt ceiling increase today.
The problem will be if ALL Republicans as a block vote no - this has historically never been seen before because everyone knows how stupid and disastrous not raising the debt ceiling would be.
David,
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
-Barack Obama
So, what you are saying NOW is that Obama was completely and utterly full of shit and a complete moron when he made that statement??
Is THAT what you are saying??
Didn't think so...
So let's dispense with the bullshit fantasy that it's somehow "different" when Democrats oppose the Debt Ceiling than when the Republicans oppose the Debt Ceiling..
You are much too intelligent of a person to be spewing such partisan claptrap and expecting ANYONE to believe it...
Michale
Have Republicans ever prevented the Debt Ceiling from being raised?
No, they have not..
Like Democrats, they scream and whine and stamp their feet and hold their breath....
But when all the hysterical and theatrics and bullshit was done, the debt ceiling got raised..
So, once again, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between Democrats and Republicans..
Save for the fact that Republicans are far better at opposing Democrats than Democrats are at opposing Republicans..
Michale
Btw Michale is kind of right on this one.
If by "kinda right" you mean dead on ballz accurate then we are in agreement.. :D
The debt ceiling will get raised.
Of this I have no doubt.
The only question will be if Democrats get a free ride or if they actually will be forced to impose some fiscal responsibility...
I know, I know.. "Fiscal Responsibility" and "Democrats" should NEVER be in the same sentence, let alone the same comment..
Michale
Michale,
David's point is simple. You are correct - Democrats have opposed debt ceiling votes. Many politicians vote tactically on bills - that is the nature of politics. Heck MANY Democrats voted against the recent tax increases.
But no party has EVER tried to use the debt ceiling as a tool to negotiate their own political agenda like the current Republicans have. Never. Ever. In. The. History. Of. The. USA.
Take the THREE debt ceiling increases in 2007-2008 which happened under DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED CONGRESSES and a REPUBLICAN President. Democrats weren't like 'if we don't get our tax increases we won't increase the ceiling. It's time to raise some revenue, stop spending on the military. If you don't we will take the country down the tubes with us!'
Michale,
The context of the debt ceiling changed DRASTICALLY when Republicans held the country hostage and cost the country their triple A credit rating (thus billions of dollars in higher interest). Since then the debt ceiling changed to a procedural move that some people could tactically vote against to a tool for Republicans to hold the country hostage until a bunch of poor/ill/veteran/unemployed people are killed to make them happy. I mean this literally too, not even an analogy.
David's point is simple. You are correct - Democrats have opposed debt ceiling votes.
That's all you need to say..
The rest is just self-serving partisan claptrap bullshit..
Democrats oppose raising the debt ceiling when there is a Republican President.
Democrats support raising the debt ceiling when there is a Democrat President.
Democrats are against torture, rendition and domestic surveillance when there is a Republican President
Democrats support torture, rendition and domestic surveillance when there is a Democrat President.
Democrats are against recess appointments when there is a Republican President.
Democrats support recess appointments when there is a Democrat President..
Democrats are against Executive Orders when there is a Republican President.
Democrats support Executive Orders when there is a Democrat President.
and so on and so on and so on ad nasuem..
So please... Don't insult my intelligence by trying to spin it as Democrats are noble and only doing what they do for the good of the country.
That's complete and utter bullshit and you damn well know it..
Democrats do what they do to further their agenda and remain in power.. Period..
You know it.. I know it.. That ends it...
Michale
Lololol still not getting it Michale. Here is the main thing you're missing:
Democrats oppose raising the debt ceiling when there is a Republican President.
Nope. In fact a Democratically controlled Congress (with Obama in it) increased it THREE TIMES with no fuss as recent as 2007-08 with a Republican President in charge.
NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
Democrats support raising the debt ceiling when there is a Democrat President.
Nope. Even NOW some Democrats will probably vote no. Since many politicians like to vote tactically.
Again: NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
One more time?
NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
Just to be sure?
NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
In case you missed it:
NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
Maybe Obama wants America to not vote on the debt ceiling. Crashing the economy will be good as it means more people will need Government help and be reliable on Government. Which means they will vote Democrat in future.
OMG I THINK I JUST UNCOVERED THE CONSPIRACY. How on earth did you miss this Michale? It was right in front of you the whole time. TELL THE WORLD! Spread the word. Lets go!
NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
Once again, you make a statement that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current discussion.
NO ONE has ever claimed that a Party, ANY Party, failed to raise the debt ceiling...
Not one single person has EVER made such a claim..
So, why would you pull such a bullshit statement out of your ass??
Answer: Because you got caught in another BS statement that you can't support so you try to divert attention from it by putting out a DIFFERENT statement that no one has ever contested...
Democrats oppose raising the debt ceiling when there is a Republican President.
You have already conceded that this is a true and correct statement..
Michty6:You are correct - Democrats have opposed debt ceiling votes.
So, once again. Cease with the bullshit... It's becoming annoying...
Michale
OMG I THINK I JUST UNCOVERED THE CONSPIRACY. How on earth did you miss this Michale? It was right in front of you the whole time. TELL THE WORLD! Spread the word. Lets go!
Once again, you wonder why no one takes you seriously...
Michale
Seriously, look at ya'alls current argument..
"Yes, Democrats opposed raising the Debt Ceiling under Bush, but they really didn't mean it."
Is THAT the argument you want to go with???
SERIOUSLY!!!?????
:D
Michale
Democrats oppose raising the debt ceiling when there is a Republican President.
You have already conceded that this is a true and correct statement..
Michty6:You are correct - Democrats have opposed debt ceiling votes.
Lol. Ok I'll expand my statement Michale since you don't get it. Maybe then you'll get it:
REPUBLICANS VOTED TO NOT INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WHEN DEMOCRATS WERE IN CHARGE; DEMOCRATS VOTED NOT TO INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WHEN REPUBLICANS WERE IN CHARGE.
DESPITE THIS NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
"Yes, Democrats opposed raising the Debt Ceiling under Bush, but they really didn't mean it."
Is THAT the argument you want to go with???
SERIOUSLY!!!?????
You're kidding me? Your argument is: Democrats opposed the debt ceiling being raised under Bush but somehow - MAGICALLY (Obama time machine again??) - despite the fact that DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE - it was raised.
Apparently your argument is when Democrats have a majority and the debt ceiling is raised this counts as Democrats not raising the debt ceiling LOLOLOL.
Again:
REPUBLICANS VOTED TO NOT INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WHEN DEMOCRATS WERE IN CHARGE; DEMOCRATS VOTED NOT TO INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WHEN REPUBLICANS WERE IN CHARGE.
DESPITE THIS NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
REPUBLICANS VOTED TO NOT INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WHEN DEMOCRATS WERE IN CHARGE; DEMOCRATS VOTED NOT TO INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WHEN REPUBLICANS WERE IN CHARGE.
DESPITE THIS NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
And NO ONE has contested this..
So, what is your point??
I assume you have one....
No??? Didn't think so....
Michale....
You have evolved beyond making any sense...
Here is my statement. It's a factual statement that is completely and utterly valid...
It also shows your partisan claptrap for the bullshit that it is.
You ready???
Democrats oppose raising the debt ceiling when there is a Republican President.
Democrats support raising the debt ceiling when there is a Democrat President.
Democrats are against torture, rendition and domestic surveillance when there is a Republican President
Democrats support torture, rendition and domestic surveillance when there is a Democrat President.
Democrats are against recess appointments when there is a Republican President.
Democrats support recess appointments when there is a Democrat President..
Democrats are against Executive Orders when there is a Republican President.
Democrats support Executive Orders when there is a Democrat President.
and so on and so on and so on ad nasuem..
These are the facts. And they are undisputed..
Michale
Lolol. This is like talking to a 5 year old.
Democrats oppose raising the debt ceiling when there is a Republican President... These are the facts. And they are undisputed..
This is NOT CORRECT. 100% wrong. Look up the word WRONG and then come back...
I guess if you said 'SOME' Democrats 'SOMETIMES' oppose raising the debt ceiling. Or a MINORITY of Democrats vote against Debt Ceiling increases when there is a Republican President. But consider (AGAIN):
NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
Or maybe some numbers.
Debt ceiling increase votes BY DEMOCRATS in the Senate:
2007 (President = R) - Yes 26, No 21
2008 (President = R) - Yes 48, No 0
2008 (President = R) - Yes 40, No 9
DO YOU SEE HOW YOU ARE 1000% WRONG???
Lets look at the recent batch of Republicans:
2007 (President = R) - Yes 26, No 20
2008 (President = R) - Yes 34, No 12
2008 (President = R) - Yes 33, No 15
2009 (President = D) - Yes 2, No 37
2009 (President = D) - Yes 1, No 38
2010 (President = D) - Yes 0, No 39
This is what led to the crisis in 2011 and the US rating being downgraded: A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS are now opposing debt ceiling increases and, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, is putting the following statement (and the entire US economy with it) in jeopardy:
NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS FAILED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING INCLUDING WHEN THEY CONTROLLED ONE OR BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS PRESIDENT.
This is why the current crisis is DIFFERENT. Because NEVER BEFORE has the party appeared actually willing to break this statement like the current maniac moronic retarded batch of Republicans.
DO YOU SEE HOW YOU ARE 1000% WRONG???
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
-Barack Obama
One of us is wrong..
But it ain't me..
I guess that's what happens when you let partisan ideology do your thinking for you...
It's sad.. It's really sad..
Michale..
One of us is wrong..
But it ain't me..
Lol I'd say one of us doesn't understand HOW NUMBERS WORK, HOW VOTES WORK and WHAT ONE NUMBER BEING BIGGER THAN ANOTHER MEANS IN A VOTE. Again:
2007 (President = R) - Yes 26, No 21
2008 (President = R) - Yes 48, No 0
2008 (President = R) - Yes 40, No 9
Apparently in Michale-world a MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS VOTING FOR SOMETHING = "Democrats Oppose" it.
= "Democrats Oppose" it.
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
-Barack Obama
'nuff said...
Michale
Well I guess we do agree that >1 Democratic Senator has previously opposed debt ceiling increases lol if that's your point. What are are 100000000000% not in agreement is your statement: "Democrats oppose raising the debt ceiling when there is a Republican President."
You do know what the s in Democratss means right? And that this statement is 1000% false?
Anyway rather than going over and over you not conceding your 100% false statements (as usual) perhaps we should change the subject. So Michale, do you think Republicans should not vote to increase the debt ceiling (presumably in a block so that it isn't increased) as they did in 2011? You think what happened in 2011 needs repeated?
So Michale, do you think Republicans should not vote to increase the debt ceiling (presumably in a block so that it isn't increased) as they did in 2011?
It doesn't matter..
Obama has proven time and time again that, if Congress doesn't do what he wants, he will just do it himself..
He has appointed himself as King..
Ironically enough, that's the VERY thing this country was formed to oppose...
So, it doesn't matter what Republicans do.. Obama will do what's best for Obama and what's best for Democrats, the country be damned..
It's a sad sad country we live in today...
Michale
So, it doesn't matter what Republicans do.. Obama will do what's best for Obama and what's best for Democrats, the country be damned..
So you're saying that raising the debt ceiling only benefits Obama and doesn't benefit the country at all?? LOLOLOL
It's a sad sad country we live in today...
I agree with this though. Where 1 party is willing to hold the entire country hostage and is completely seriously contemplating destroying the entire American and World economy essentially using terrorist tactic - they will do this if a bunch of poor/unemployed/sick/veterans that they want killed aren't killed - you really do live in a sad sad sad country.
you really do live in a sad sad sad country.
Yea, but we still kicked yer asses and got rid of your frak'in king... :D
Looks like we're going to have ANOTHER "king" problem again real soon...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson
It's a shame that it has come to this, but it certainly looks like that's the road we are heading down...
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507
Michale
My only point in bringing up Obama's quote is the blatant and utter hypocrisy exhibited by our POTUS...
And, by extension, the fact that ya'all give him a pass on such blatant and utter hypocrisy solely and completely because of that '-D' after his name...
It's disappointing...
Kinda like finding out your parents aren't perfect... :D
Michale....
Lol who said we were giving him a pass. Clearly Obama played politics back in the day. He has only realised that now from being on the other side of the fence. This isn't a huge shock or revelation.
Where I will point out your errors are when you make the suggestion that any party in the history of either party, in the history of the USA has played politics with the debt ceiling to the extent the current batch of Republicans are. It LITERALLY cost the USA BILLIONS in 2011, slowed down the economic recovery and led to a downgrade in credit rating.
Their lesson from this? They don't care. They will use the debt ceiling as hostage again and consider it 'leverage' in any debate. This speaks to how lunatic, moronic and downright stupid the current Republican party is.
Lol who said we were giving him a pass. Clearly Obama played politics back in the day. He has only realised that now from being on the other side of the fence. This isn't a huge shock or revelation.
Or maybe he was right back then and he is just playing politics now, now that he has a taste of what it's like to be King.
"You can't just discard a theory, simply because you don't like it."
-Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN
Michale
Lol who said we were giving him a pass.
On the other hand (credit where credit is due) you did state for the record that Obama has been "incompetent" in handling the economy...
So, we DO have some common ground in that...
Tomorrow is going to be a fun day.. Obama announces his end run around Congress Gun Control measures..
As I said in a previous comment, there are a few good ideas there. Some that I can completely get behind..
But if he actually tries to issue an executive order that violates the Constitution, there will be blood, of that I am certain...
Michale
But if he actually tries to issue an executive order that violates the Constitution...
the actual constitution? or the constitution according to FOX? if it's the former, i'm right there with you. if it's the latter, pardon me while i stifle a yawn. since there's a pretty wide gap between the two, perhaps the roberts court isn't quite done judging this president's policies just yet...
~joshua
Looks like the GOP is coming around to a more sane position ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/15/another-gop-senator-recognizes-the-inevitable/
Kinda like finding out your parents aren't perfect... :D
Heheh ... you mean there is no Santa Claus?
:)
-David
BTW- Has anyone heard from Romney lately? What happened to him?
I don't think I've ever seen someone disappear so completely from the public view. I can't remember this happening to Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, etc. It's almost as if he never ran for President.
Joshua,
the actual constitution? or the constitution according to FOX?
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed
Now, that's the REAL Constitution as far as I am concerned..
Now, YOU might be referring to the HuffPo/DailyKos/MSNBC Constitution.. Not sure I can go with you there...
. since there's a pretty wide gap between the two, perhaps the roberts court isn't quite done judging this president's policies just yet...
Every time the SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd Amendment itself, they have ALWAYS (EVERY TIME) ruled against the hysterical Gun Control fanatics
I am also constrained to point out that recent rulings by the SCOTUS establish beyond doubt how they would rule on the 2nd Amendment...
Even Harry Reid himself has stated that a Gun Ban is a non-starter thru Congress..
Which is why Obama will likely try to do it by ignoring Congress and issuing an executive order.
Any rifle ban will HAVE to be retro-active or it will be as useless as the 1994 Rifle Ban...
If Obama tries to enforce a Gun Confiscation Executive Order.... Well, what do YOU think will happen???
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507
Michale
David,
I don't think I've ever seen someone disappear so completely from the public view. I can't remember this happening to Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, etc.
Well, after Gore got his ass kicked in court, he disappeared for a year or more..
Kerry?? He was gone from the public consciousness even before the votes were finished counting. Of course, his place in the Senate insured he couldn't completely disappear..
Dole?? Dukakis?? Each had public sector jobs that they went back to..
You are comparing Apples and Eskimos.
While I acknowledge that you have every reason to gloat, it does kind of belay your usual "There is no Right v Left" attitude that you usually trot out just to annoy me. :D
Michale
While I acknowledge that you have every reason to gloat
Who's gloating? It's just interesting that someone who was a daily headline for well over 6 months before the election has now completely disappeared from the media.
You're probably right though, I guess Romney will probably do the talk show circuit in another year or so. He'll star in a Viagra commercial or something and everyone will talk about his comeback.
"There is no Right v Left" attitude that you usually trot out just to annoy me.
Yep. It's all about you :)
I'm just glad that some Republicans are finally starting to voice some reason around this whole debt ceiling idiocy.
-David
It's just interesting that someone who was a daily headline for well over 6 months before the election has now completely disappeared from the media.
The fact that he was running for President MIGHT have a little bit to do with that, no?? :D
I'm just glad that some Republicans are finally starting to voice some reason around this whole debt ceiling idiocy.
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
-Barack Obama
So, you are saying that Obama was an idiot??? :D
Michale
So, you are saying that Obama was an idiot?
Consider the context. Obama's vote at the time was a protest vote (against the Iraq War) which meant nothing. And ... even he has admitted it was a mistake.
Obama isn't perfect and there's a lot of things I disagree with him on.
But what you and the GOP don't seem to understand is that you're not offering a better alternative. All you're doing is Obama/liberal bashing.
So the choice the American public has right now is basically Democrats or some people who are willing to crash the economy just because they're not in power.
When the Republican party does something constructive is the day when I'd look at them as a serious party again. Offer a better alternative! would be my advice to them.
-David
David,
some people who are willing to crash the economy just because they're not in power.
Going to have to correct you here. You mean 'willing to crash the economy unless a bunch of poor/unemployed/sick/veterans (that they don't and have never liked) are killed through cutting their services. Exactly like terrorists.
Consider the context.
Funny how the "context" always favors the Democrats around here. :D It defies logic.. :D
Obama isn't perfect and there's a lot of things I disagree with him on.
Yet you refuse to articulate such disagreements, even when prompted..
Further many of the things you disagree with him on are fundemental to the principles of your political ideology...
It's like someone saying they disagree with a lot of things about Ted Bundy, but they still support his election to city council...
So the choice the American public has right now is basically Democrats or some people who are willing to crash the economy just because they're not in power.
No. It's between those who want to reign in spending to SAVE the economy (Republicans) and those who are on an orgasmic spending binge that will result in ruining the economy (Democrats).
We each have our own spin, but mine is supported by facts and reality and yours is supported by wishful thinking and political ideology..
Going to have to correct you here. You mean 'willing to crash the economy unless a bunch of poor/unemployed/sick/veterans (that they don't and have never liked) are killed through cutting their services. Exactly like terrorists.
Why am I not surprised... :^/
It's completely unacceptable to compare an American to a terrorist solely on the basis of a political disagreement..
Unless, of course it's the Hysterical Left who does it to the Right.
THEN it's perfectly acceptable...
And ya'all wonder why Democrats have the hypocrisy label down pat...
Michale
It's completely unacceptable to compare an American to a terrorist solely on the basis of a political disagreement..
Unless, of course it's the Hysterical Left who does it to the Right.
THEN it's perfectly acceptable...
Don't worry too much about it, michty. I am sure everyone here in Wegantia (sans the Grand Poobah Himself) feels the same way.
Some have even come right out and state it..
But let someone accuse Democrats of coddling terrorists and furthering the terrorist agenda??
Watch the go beet red with hysteria...
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat...
Michale
Yes Michale. Well since the leader of the Democratic party is a terrorist Muslim then it is no surprise that they coddle, love and snuggle up to bed every night with terrorists.
But, that side, lets look at the definition of terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
You don't think saying 'If we don't get our way we will crash the entire economy' is intimidation? Seems like it to me. Especially when 'their way' would cause massive harm to people on the lower social ladders of society (i.e. those unable to defend themselves most). That the aims of the Republican party are political is without question...
But, that side, lets look at the definition of terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Where did you come up with that bonehead ignorant definition???
You don't think saying 'If we don't get our way we will crash the entire economy' is intimidation? Seems like it to me.
Hmmmmmm
"If we don't get our way, we are going to destroy your business"
Most people call that a boycott.
I guess you would call it economic terrorism, right???
But, as I said.. Don't sweat it..
You simply articulated what everyone (with a few exceptions) here thinks..
Michale
But, that side, lets look at the definition of terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
-Barack Obama
So, I guess what you are saying is that, in your opinion, Obama is a terrorist...
Oh wait.. 'It's different', right??
:D
Michale
Where did you come up with that bonehead ignorant definition???
Dictionary.com. There is no legal criminal law definition of 'terrorism'. What most people (I'm going to guess you fall into this) associate with the word terrorism (especially in America) is 'Al Queada' type terrorism. This could not be further from what the definition of terrorism is.
The UN definition is similar (just a less concise version)= "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act"
"If we don't get our way, we are going to destroy your business"
Most people call that a boycott.
I guess you would call it economic terrorism, right???
Lololol once again you completely miss the point.
Boycott = we won't be using your product
Terrorism = we will destroy your company and product.
One is exercising your freedom of choice; the other is applying economic terrorism.
Basically under your misconception anyone who doesn't eat at a particular company is a terrorist lolololol.
So, I guess what you are saying is that, in your opinion, Obama is a terrorist...
You missed the part where Obama demanded something in return for his vote.
Saying I am not going to increase the debt limit does not meed the definition of terrorism.
Saying I am not going to increase the debt limit because I want to cause economic chaos unless you give me X/Y/Z does.
The latter applies to the Republican party of today, the former to the Obama of the past.
This is a point that has been continually repeated over and over again in here and continually you ignore it.
Well since the leader of the Democratic party is a terrorist Muslim then it is no surprise that they coddle, love and snuggle up to bed every night with terrorists.
For the record it was YOU who called the leader of the Democratic Party a terrorist.
Not I... :D
Michale
There is no other way I see to describe this socialist Muslim Usurper who is creating a dictatorship to turn American into a Muslim terrorist paradise...
You missed the part where Obama demanded something in return for his vote.
It's not in his quote..
Further, Republicans are also demanding something in return. A slow down of the Democrats Orgasmic Spending.
So, by your OWN criteria, you have just proven that Republicans are NOT terrorists, despite your earlier claim that they were..
It's just tooo damn easy... :D
Michale
Further, Republicans are also demanding something in return. A slow down of the Democrats Orgasmic Spending.
So, by your OWN criteria, you have just proven that Republicans are NOT terrorists, despite your earlier claim that they were..
Lol what? I don't think you understood anything I have posted...
Lol what? I don't think you understood anything I have posted...
So, what else is new.. You rarely make any sense at all.
But I think everyone will agree with me that you went off the deep end when you called Republicans terrorists...
Or, maybe not.. :^/
Michale
Economic terrorism is no laughing matter Michale. You should be sad-face-with-tear ;)
Economic terrorism is no laughing matter Michale. You should be sad-face-with-tear ;)
Accusing people of being terrorists solely on the basis of political disagreement is also no laughing matter.
Accusing people of being racist solely for the purposes of silencing dissent is also no laughing matter..
But, it's documented fact that Democrats have done both....
Pattern of behavior...
Michale
Acting like a terrorist and threatening to destroy the world economy if you don't get the cuts to people who can't defend themselves is no laughing matter either Michale.
Luckily the President has made it clear that, on the subject of the debt ceiling, he will not negotiate with terrorists...
Luckily the President has made it clear that, on the subject of the debt ceiling, he will not negotiate with terrorists...
That's what I like about you michty..
You aren't afraid to double down on stupidity, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look..
Such reckless abandon is refreshing in a way...
Michale
The difference is that most of the time when I'm being stupid and ridiculous it's tongue in cheek. Most of the time you actually believe half the crap Drudge/Rush are spewing about how Obama is taking over the country and making us all dependent on welfare. That's why I like chatting to you :)
Most of the time you actually believe half the crap Drudge/Rush are spewing about how Obama is taking over the country and making us all dependent on welfare.
Hey michty- I know many conservatives in person here in the U.S. and one of the funny things about them is that when they trust you (or you get them drunk enough) a lot of them will say that they don't really believe a lot of the Rush Limbaugh-like garbage. What it comes down to most of the time is that they just don't like 'liberals'.
So anything they can say to 'annoy' a liberal is a win. They're not fighting in the rational, logical universe as academics know it but in this kind of trolling, poke you universe. Because ... somehow or other they think that you're different from them. Or, quite often, they think they can somehow 'win' this way.
What I hear a lot of the time from my conservative friends is "I hate liberals, but you're ok ..." :) And then they'll say they don't really believe such and such but they just know liberals are wrong.
A lot of it I think has to do with identity. But sometimes it seems like the oddest thing.
-David
The difference is that most of the time when I'm being stupid and ridiculous it's tongue in cheek.
Hay, whatever helps you sleep at night...
No biggie to me...
Michale
BTW ... even the Koch brothers are advocating against being deadbeats
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/koch-brothers-debt-ceiling_n_2486191.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
Pretty soon it will be official Republican policy. Now they just have to find a way to save face.
Watch for it :)
-David
David,
And then they'll say they don't really believe such and such but they just know liberals are wrong.
The point is that this is EXACTLY what Rush Limbaugh (et al) advocate. You should read his show blogs they are highly entertaining - although if you wanted to save time just read most of Michale's posts on here as he summarises Rush pretty well ;)
But yeh Rush has this massive 'anti-liberal' campaign and a bunch of his stuff is like 'liberals believe X/Y/Z (usually a bunch of complete and utter bullshit' so the reason people get these attitudes is they believe what he is saying; then they meet you and they're like 'oh I don't like liberals (read: what Rush Limbaugh tells me a liberal is) but you're ok (read: that is, what a liberal is actually like)'.
So, basically it's wrong that conservatives don't like liberals..
But it's perfectly OK for liberals to hate conservatives and call them terrorists and such..
You guys should REALLY step outside yourselves and see how self-righteous and hypocritical ya'all look...
Ya'all act EXACTLY as you accuse conservatives of acting.
EXACTLY...
Michale
Lol yes Michale once again you TOTALLY got the point lol.
The point is that it is NOT ok, as far as I'm concerned, to basically spew a bunch of hatred and vomit and then say 'this is how liberals think and you should hate them'. That leads to really bad places (see history). Labelling any group or anyone is a bad thing. Like 'the majority of Muslims are terrorist because 0.0001% of Muslims have committed terrorist acts' is a good example (one that I have seen from you). Any 'journalist' or blogger or anyone spewing this nonsense should not be taken seriously.
The point is that it is NOT ok, as far as I'm concerned, to basically spew a bunch of hatred and vomit and then say 'this is how liberals think and you should hate them'.
And yet, you feel it's perfectly OK to spew a bunch of hatred and vomit and then say 'this is how conservatives think and you should hate them'
Even when you try to justify your position, you end up proving my point perfectly...
Labelling any group or anyone is a bad thing.
Except, of course, if it's a conservative group you are labeling....
You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper..
Like I said before.. It's just too damn easy...
Michale
And yet, you feel it's perfectly OK to spew a bunch of hatred and vomit and then say 'this is how conservatives think and you should hate them'
Even when you try to justify your position, you end up proving my point perfectly...
Labelling any group or anyone is a bad thing.
Except, of course, if it's a conservative group you are labeling
Yes this is exactly what I said. Many many many many many many many times. So many times you'll be able to quote me quite easily? You really are a maniac.
On that note, let's get back to Obama conspiracy theories they are way more fun. Let's start with the military. Now I've been thinking that Obama wants to reduce the military budget because he wants the terrorists to win. Thoughts?
On that note, let's get back to Obama conspiracy theories they are way more fun. Let's start with the military. Now I've been thinking that Obama wants to reduce the military budget because he wants the terrorists to win. Thoughts?
Actually, come to think of it, this might be why he wants to take your guns away too. I think we're on to something BIG here.
Yes this is exactly what I said.
At least you admit your problem..
That's the first step towards solving it.. :D
But apparently, you have company.. No one but me came down on your bigoted remarks about Republicans being terrorists...
Granted, the day is young... :D
Michale
No Michale, remember I actually said all Republicans are terrorists and they all think like terrorists - every action is analysed with a terrorist mind-set - and that everyone in American should hate them because they are terrorists. You told me so in [83]! Can't you read!
Like I said, michty... It's admirable (in a way) that you can so enthusiastically double down on stoopid... :D
Michale
It's not my fault I'm stoopid. I dropped out of skool so I could get unemployment benefits. You see aside from his Reagan-bots handing out unemployment benefits, Obama unleashed thousands of robots all over the Western world over the past 40 years - instituting policies of giving out unemployment benefits during recessions. This was just in case one day they might become an American citizen and vote Democrat. I'm a perfect example of how his evil plan worked.
On that note, let's get back to Obama conspiracy theories they are way more fun. Let's start with the military. Now I've been thinking that Obama wants to reduce the military budget because he wants the terrorists to win. Thoughts?
Actually, come to think of it, this might be why he wants to take your guns away too. I think we're on to something BIG here.
Professor claims Newtown was a Government ploy to push gun control through: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/professor-won-t-back-down-newtown-massacre-conspiracy-183530799.html
All the pieces are coming together now...
Professor claims Newtown was a Government ploy to push gun control through: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/professor-won-t-back-down-newtown-massacre-conspiracy-183530799.html
Yea... He's a liberal whack-job who thinks Bush personally ordered 9/11...
Ya got a lot of crazies in your ideological tent, michty... :D
Michale
Lol considering the definition of liberal includes being free from prejudice and bigotry, as well as analysing decisions rationally and logically - welcoming new ideas and concepts - I'd suggest he is not a liberal under any definition of the term ;)
Conspiracy theories, for these very reasons (never mind a guy who runs an entire blog related to them), don't really belong in the liberal world-frame. Fact > theory.
I'd have thought they'd be right up your street though Michale - this seems to me to be exactly the type of guy who believes Obama wasn't born in America...
Lol considering the definition of liberal includes being free from prejudice and bigotry, as well as analysing decisions rationally and logically - welcoming new ideas and concepts - I'd suggest he is not a liberal under any definition of the term ;)
Neither are you... :D
Michale
The point is that this is EXACTLY what Rush Limbaugh (et al) advocate. You should read his show blogs they are highly entertaining
Heheh. I do every now and then. AM radio here would be hilarious if so many people didn't buy into the whackness.
And you're right, they make up this thing called 'liberal' (which is typically based on some single instance somewhere w/ 1 or 2 people - the 2 new black panthers in Philadelphia was my favorite) and then they tell their audience that this is what all 'liberals' are like.
But it's perfectly OK for liberals to hate conservatives and call them terrorists and such.
Who hates conservatives or spews hate about them, Michale?
There's a lot of people who disagree with conservatives. But I don't see anyone 'spewing hate' in the way you see right wing pundits like Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, etc do.
When liberals say something like the Republican plan to not raise the debt ceiling would crash the economy, it's because this is what the Republican plan would do, not because anyone hates Republicans.
Ask any economist.
-David
Neither are you... :D
Of course not. Rush told me all Liberals get together every night for satanic rituals. They're evil man. I hate all liberals (except for the ones I've met, who it turned out were actually quite nice and don't perform satanic rituals...).
I hate all liberals (except for the ones I've met, who it turned out were actually quite nice and don't perform satanic rituals...).
Crap ... I'm out. I totally perform Satanic rituals.
:)
-David
I KNEW IT!
Who hates conservatives or spews hate about them, Michale?
SERIOUSLY???
Maybe the liberals who call them "terrorists"...
But I don't see anyone 'spewing hate' in the way you see right wing pundits like Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, etc do.
WOW.... The selective optics is simply astounding...
You HONESTLY and TRULY believe that the Left doesn't spew hate???
SERIOUSLY!???
This is another joke, isn't it?? A con like the time you said that we should disband the US Armed Forces...
Right???
Michale
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed
[snip]
I am also constrained to point out that recent rulings by the SCOTUS establish beyond doubt how they would rule on the 2nd Amendment...
Even Harry Reid himself has stated that a Gun Ban is a non-starter thru Congress..
that's all i meant, the established precedent of case law, not what some "commentator" (of whatever political bent) says the constitution means according to them. yes, the government certainly can't take away ALL guns in ALL circumstances, that precedent is well established. but just as the right to free speech doesn't allow you to shout "fire" in a crowd, the right to bear arms doesn't permit you to keep weapons in ways that directly endanger your fellow citizens - for example if you are mentally ill or a convicted felon, or if the weapon is a rocket launcher.
there's plenty of grey area between no guns whatsoever and no restrictions whatsoever. being a constitutional scholar, i doubt the president is somehow unaware of the case law or unconcerned with its implications. in that vein, the obama administration's guiding principle seems so far to have been following the precedents of the administration that directly preceded him. any legislative or constitutional tactic that bush used, it's a fair bet obama will as well.
~joshua
You HONESTLY and TRULY believe that the Left doesn't spew hate?
Point me at a 'left' pundit who spews hate about conservatives.
Really.
If it's such a joke it should be easy right. Yet I notice you didn't answer.
Who?
-David
Who hates conservatives or spews hate about them, Michale?
i can field this one. although it does tend toward a wider variety, the huffington post certainly has its fair share of lefty trolls, who are quite the mirror image of righty trolls.
i haven't crunched the numbers and analyzed the data to compare the prevalence of wingnuttery among the right and left, but such things on the left side of the political spectrum are certainly not imaginary.
~joshua
Does the left in America have an equivalent of Rush Limbaugh? Someone who feeds the masses vile hatred and propaganda in a very deliberate manner to convince them that anyone who is a 'liberal' is evil?
I'm actually interested.
"Okay, let's walk through that. What we're basically saying is, we're going to balance the federal budget not over time, but in a moment, in a day. So the next morning, what are we going to pay? Do you think we ought to pay the troops? Most people would say, 'Oh gosh, absolutely!' Well, what about those receiving Medicare? 'We need to do that, they're dependent on that.' What about Social Security? 'Well certainly, we earned that, we paid into that.' And you just go down the line, and most folks, if you really walk through it, it's not a good scenario."
- Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.)
At least there are some sensible ones out there...
Point me at a 'left' pundit who spews hate about conservatives.
Seriously, David!??
Rachael Maddow
Bill Maher
Rosie O'Donnell
Keith Olbermann
Chris Matthews
Michael Moore
Those are just off the top of my head. I can Google and find a ton more..
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that there are NO liberals who spew hatred against conservatives and Republicans.
Hell, our very own michty just called Republicans terrorists!!!
I have to say again...
SERIOUSLY!!???
i haven't crunched the numbers and analyzed the data to compare the prevalence of wingnuttery among the right and left, but such things on the left side of the political spectrum are certainly not imaginary.
Thank you, Joshua!
Jeezus, I am simply gabberflasted that this is even contested!!!
Michale
that's all i meant, the established precedent of case law, not what some "commentator" (of whatever political bent) says the constitution means according to them
Agreed...
Here's the problem..
For a rifle ban to be effective, it would have to be retro-active..
It makes absolutely NO SENSE to ban future sales of rifles and leave the millions and millions of rifles in circulation..
And when you start getting into the area of confiscating people's guns, you get into the area of where there will be armed conflict..
State LEO forces versus Federal LEO forces..
And things will go downhill from there...
Michale....
Point me at a 'left' pundit who spews hate about conservatives.
The NRA created an APP where you can target shoot with a variety of weapons..
Some left wing nutjob created an APP where you can shoot NRA Leadership in the head..
But yer right..
There isn't any hate coming from the Left.. :^/
Michale
i can field this one. although it does tend toward a wider variety, the huffington post certainly has its fair share of lefty trolls, who are quite the mirror image of righty trolls.
Who does it on a national stage nypoet?
Bill Maher is about the closest I can think of. There's a difference between him and most of the Right pundits. The difference is that at the heart of Maher's arguments are arguments (mixed in with a lot of disdain for conservative positions - his big failing in my opinion). Chris Matthews is somewhat similar.
Personae like Rush on the other hand are pure theatrics. If Rush had to argue in a traditional academic style, Rush would lose. It's as simple as that. Therefore, the Rush's of the world switch the fight.
Pundits on the left focus much more on conservative arguments rather than attacking conservatives. Rachel Maddow is probably the best example. BTW- ever notice that many of the pundits on the left are on the comedy channel. The one thing you do not see on TV are what I would call strong liberal evangelists. Comedy plays to those who are already on your side. It rarely convinces people. If there really were a liberal media, why don't we see any strong liberal evangelists? The last I can think of was Keith Olbermann before he left MSNBC. Maddow is getting close. Chris Hayes has the potential.
-David
david,
michael moore strikes me as a particularly good example, because he engages in both over-the-top attacks AND major bending of the facts. at the moment i think he's probably the best candidate for anti-limbaugh. mike malloy is also pretty strong on this front, though he's not as widely publicized. try the daily beast's list of lefty pundits:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2010/02/16/the-left-s-top-25-journalists.html
i'd say at least a third of the list have at times taken liberties with the truth and/or taken unnecessarily personal shots. i would tend to agree that maddow is pretty good about attacking public arguments and behaviors rather than getting personal - which is one of the reasons she's stayed on the air while olbermann didn't. but that's not true of everybody. i'd say people like matthews, maher and jon stewart have all gotten vicious at times, but for the most part their facts tend to check out.
i consider it likely that more of the crazy right get a broad public platform than the crazy left, mainly because the left has a stronger base among intellectuals who don't tolerate the anti-fact brand of wingnuttery. but just because the loony left may not get as many nationally syndicated talk-radio shows doesn't mean they aren't out there.
~joshua
Does the left in America have an equivalent of Rush Limbaugh? Someone who feeds the masses vile hatred and propaganda in a very deliberate manner to convince them that anyone who is a 'conservative' is evil?
I don't think so, michty. The key words here being 'masses' and working 'to convince them that anyone who is a 'conservative' is evil'.
i'd say people like matthews, maher and jon stewart have all gotten vicious at times, but for the most part their facts tend to check out.
So one key point of difference ... facts. Actual arguments.
the left has a stronger base among intellectuals who don't tolerate the anti-fact brand of wingnuttery
A second key point of difference ... checks and balances.
michael moore strikes me as a particularly good example, because he engages in both over-the-top attacks AND major bending of the facts.
I'd have to see more of his later work to be sure, but I suspect you're right. I heard Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty 'speculative'. However, again, I heard this from the left. Moore has been 'fact checked' by the left and a lot of his work discredited.
And ... I still wouldn't go so far as to say that Michael Moore was trying to incite people against all conservatives. Not in the way right wing pundits do for liberals.
I would agree with you, nypoet, that a loony left is out there - I've seen 9/11 conspiracy theorists. However, statistically, they are a pretty small group. The majority of liberals do not match the view put forward of liberals by the right. Whereas statistically, some 20% of our population believes that Obama is a Muslim. Partly, this may be because we don't have people spewing hate against conservatives to the masses in the way that conservatives do against liberals.
-David
However, statistically, they are a pretty small group.
We weren't arguing the SIZE of said group.
We were arguing the EXISTENCE of said group..
Michale
We were arguing the EXISTENCE of said group.
If existence is your argument, you win.
It's not a very interesting argument though. Because you can always point to a couple people who have some belief. There's still people who truly in all good faith believe the world is flat.
The more interesting argument to me is the difference between the perception of liberals and actual liberals.
Does the Limbaugh version of liberals match what the majority of liberals are?
Are the 50+ million people who voted for Obama like those 2 new black panthers in Philadelphia?
This, to me, is the more interesting argument. If all you want to argue is 'existence,' it's a pretty short argument since I'd agree (and probably pretty much everyone) that you can always find someone with an extreme view.
-David
This, to me, is the more interesting argument. If all you want to argue is 'existence,' it's a pretty short argument since I'd agree (and probably pretty much everyone) that you can always find someone with an extreme view.
But we are not just talking "someone with an extreme view".. You have been hanging around michty too long. :D
I am sure you would agree that Limbaugh is not just "someone with a point of view".
It's just as factual to say Michael Moore is not just "someone with a point of view" or Bill Maher is not just "someone with a point of view"...
Bill Maher is the Left's Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore is the Left's Glenn Beck.. Chris Matthews is the Left's Sean Hannity.
Of course you will deny this. You will say that they aren't as bad as their Right-Wing counterparts..
But you are not speaking objectively. You are speaking from the position that you AGREE with much of what Maher says, much of what Moore says, much of what Matthews says...
Ergo, you have a conflict of interest..
Michale
Once again, the simple question.
Does the Limbaugh version of liberals match the statistical reality?
Are there really 50 million loony lefty Communists? Or even 1 million? Or even 50,000?
Or is it right-wing media pointing to a couple new Black Panthers in Philadelphia?
On the flip side, I think it's what, 11 million people who listen to Rush on a weekly basis. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
The conservative version of liberals does not match the reality.
-David
You will say that they aren't as bad as their Right-Wing counterparts.
They simply don't do the same thing as what you claim are their "right-wing counterparts".
They don't tell as many lies. And if they do lie, they lose credibility within the 'left'.
They don't attack conservatives just for being conservative. They argue over positions rather than simply attacking conservatives for being 'conservative'.
What they do is different.
-David
-David
Does the Limbaugh version of liberals match the statistical reality?
And does the Maher version of conservatives match the statistical reality?
Of course, you will say yes...
But, then again, you are not objective as you believe a lot of the same things that Maher believes...
On the flip side, I think it's what, 11 million people who listen to Rush on a weekly basis. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
You are more of an expert on Limbaugh than I am.. My only exposure to Limbaugh comes from ya'alls spinned (spuned?? spooned??) comments on what Limbaugh says...
Michale
They don't tell as many lies.
Bullshit.. Journo-List..
They don't attack conservatives just for being conservative.
Bullshit..
They argue over positions rather than simply attacking conservatives for being 'conservative'.
Bullshit
What they do is different.
And I completely believe that you believe that..
But to an OBJECTIVE person, a person who is neither conservative nor liberal, there is no difference..
While the Right may be more effective in their entertaining (as evidenced by ratings) the actual act and the actual intent, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the Right pundits and the Left pundits..
I know you will never concede this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Michale
And does the Maher version of conservatives match the statistical reality?
That is a good question. What is the Maher version of conservatives?
Religious? Dogmatic? Not open to ideas outside of the conservative sphere?
-David
That is a good question. What is the Maher version of conservatives?
Think of Rush Limbaugh and how he talks about Liberals and you'll know how Maher talks about Conservatives..
Michale
Think of Rush Limbaugh and how he talks about Liberals and you'll know how Maher talks about Conservatives.
So you don't actually know ...
Well, you did admit that you didn't know anything about Limbaugh either.
Where are you getting this conclusion from then if you aren't familiar with either?
-David
Where are you getting this conclusion from then if you aren't familiar with either?
I never watch or listen to either. But I do read about them when they say something moronic or outrageous..
And it happens often enough and with enough similarity to conclude that Maher and Limbaugh are simply two sides of the same coin..
Michale
I still wouldn't go so far as to say that Michael Moore was trying to incite people against all conservatives. Not in the way right wing pundits do for liberals.
i would, and i've seen all his films except the most recent.
That's kind of my point..
Ya'all want people to be so indignant, so offended and so angry about what people like Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity say about Liberals, yet ya'all completely ignore what Maher and Moore and Matthews and O'Donnell and Maddow say about Conservatives..
Ya'all AGREE with what they say about conservatives..
Ya'all call conservatives "TERRORISTS", just because of a political disagreement..
And ya'all simply are gabberflasted that not everyone buys into your "Republicans are Evil, Republicans are Terrorsts" meme...
Granted, not every Weigantian is part of the euphemistic "ya'all"... But enough are to be able to make such a blanket generalization...
If ya'all want civil discourse, YOU HAVE TO BE CIVIL...
If ya'all want rational discussions, YOU HAVE TO BE RATIONAL...
If ya'all want your point of view respected, YOU HAVE TO RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE'S POINT OF VIEW...
This isn't rocket science, people.
It's common sense...
Michale
MFCCFL
You have to be rational AND TALK IN LOUD ANGRY CAPITAL LETTERS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!
Hmmmmm.
-David
You have to be rational AND TALK IN LOUD ANGRY CAPITAL LETTERS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!
I wasn't yelling, I was emphasizing.
But this isn't about me.. :D
Is it rational to say that Republicans hate poor people?
Of course not.
Is it rational to call Republicans terrorists??
Of course not.
Is it rational to say that Republicans want to crash Wall Street??
Of course not.
I'm just sayin'.....
Michale
Is it rational to say that Republicans hate poor people?
depends what you mean by "Republicans," what you mean by "poor people," and what you mean by "hate." it's obvious hyperbole - much like: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. … These are people who pay no income tax. … and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” - but i would say the rational basis for claiming that the two statements correlate is well above zero.
~joshua
i would, and i've seen all his films except the most recent.
Roger & Me- Moore uses film to bring attention to the issue of outsourcing and its affects on Detroit.
Bowling for Columbine- Moore uses film to bring attention to the issue of gun violence in schools and the military industrial complex. His attempt to link the two is tenuous.
Sicko- Moore uses film to bring attention to the sorry state of American healthcare.
Capitalism: A Love Story- Moore uses film to bring attention to the role Wall Street banks and the economic order in the U.S. played in the financial collapse.
These are the Moore films I've seen. At his worst, Moore becomes overly dramatic like when he asks Charlton Heston if he wants to apologize for leading NRA rallies in Flint Michigan where a 6-year old girl was shot.
I don't see where he is spewing hate and vitriol against conservatives, however. His style seems more like using drama and film theatrics to try to bring attention to issues which otherwise wouldn't garner much media attention.
Can you give me an example?
Is it rational to say that Republicans want to crash Wall Street?
Economists agree that the effect of not raising our debt limit would be drastic- the stock market could see a 10% plunge, for example.
Yet there doesn't seem to be any concern about this on the Republican side.
You can call it whatever you want but it looks to me as if Republicans care more about their political goals than our economy.
Who called Republicans terrorists?
-David
i've seen roger and me, bowling for columbine, fahrenheit 9/11, sicko, and some of moore's tv work. i've read "downsize this!" and i'd also like to see capitalism: a love story, when i get the chance. it's a guilty pleasure for me, as i'm sure limbaugh is to many on the right who know better than to take his statements at face value.
moore crafts a great story; partly with fact, partly with myth and misdirection. if you want an interesting perspective on his methods, see the documentary, "Manufacturing Dissent" by rick caine and debbie melnyk. i saw it on netflix; it's a really interesting piece, because it does to moore exactly what he does to everyone else - fairly or not.
~joshua
http://youtu.be/NelqoHPZavk
Economists agree that the effect of not raising our debt limit would be drastic- the stock market could see a 10% plunge, for example.
Democrats are against domestic surveillance and against torturing terrorists.
Using your reasoning, that means that Democrats support terrorists...
The flaw in your thought process is you choose the nastiest POSSIBLE outcome of an action and claim that THAT outcome is the intent.
Without ANY evidence to support such a claim, I might add..
Who called Republicans terrorists?
Oh come'on... That has happened many times here in Wegantia. As recently as right in this commentary.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/14/obamas-line-in-the-sand/#comment-32120
Now I KNOW yer just funnin' with me.. :D
Michale
{Liberals} argue over positions rather than simply attacking conservatives for being 'conservative'.
Really??
So, what "position" was Maher arguing when he called Sarah Palin a "c*nt"??
What "position" were Liberals arguing when they attacked Palin's kids in the most vile and disgusting manner??
No matter how much you want to spin things, the simple fact is that vile, disgusting and perverse personal attacks are NOT the sole domain of the Right..
Michale
moore crafts a great story; partly with fact, partly with myth and misdirection.
Agreed. Moore at his worst is melodrama and omission. However, his focus is still bringing into the public eye issues which otherwise wouldn't receive attention. His focus is not to brand the group 'conservatives' as evil in order to win elections.
Oh come'on... That has happened many times here in Wegantia.
Please ... the comparison is to tactics and you just love it when you can change it into a personal attack on you.
In fairness, the tactic of threatening the economy in order to try to win cutbacks in social programs would more accurately be compared with extortion :)
So, what "position" was Maher arguing when he called Sarah Palin a "c*nt"?
I think he was out of line. Period. That's why I said Maher is about the closest thing to a Limbaugh on air I've seen.
Again though, the focus of Maher's show is not to brand the group 'conservatives' as evil/stupid in order to win elections. Does this make instances like this right? No. But he doesn't work to dupe people into thinking others are evil in order to advance the agenda of any particular party.
Its a false equivalency though to lump him in with the Limbaughs of the world. It's also funny how you lump Maddow and any other 'liberal' pundit in with Maher when Maddow never ventures into that territory.
Let me put it this way. Maher uses entertainment to inform. Limbaugh uses entertainment to disinform. This is why some 20% of American people think Obama is a Muslim born in another country. Where you see the similarity is the 'entertainment' part.
Can you show me where Maher has ever tried to deliberately misinform people?
-David
Please ... the comparison is to tactics and you just love it when you can change it into a personal attack on you.
Not a personal attack on me, as I am not a Republican. It's not about me.. Remember?? :D
But it's a reprehensible attack. At least when a Republicans says it about a Democrat.
Apparently, it's OK if a Democrats says it about a Republican or a Left-Winger says it about conservatives..
Like I said above, if the Left wants civility, they have to be civil.. If the Left wants respect, they have to be respectful.
Again though, the focus of Maher's show is not to brand the group 'conservatives' as evil/stupid in order to win elections.
In your opinion..
But your opinion is biased...
Let me put it this way. Maher uses entertainment to inform. Limbaugh uses entertainment to disinform.
A perfect case in point. Maher misinforms as much as Limbaugh...
But you don't see that because you agree with Maher..
This is why some 20% of American people think Obama is a Muslim born in another country.
And you believe that is SOLELY and COMPLETELY because of Limbaugh?? You don't even CONSIDER the possibility that some of Obama's actions and history might support such a conclusion.
Like I said, you take the WORST possibility and conclude that THAT is the intent..
Can you show me where Maher has ever tried to deliberately misinform people?
I could..
But what would be the point? You would just spin it or invoke "context" or some such evasion..
The simple fact is, I have proven beyond ANY doubt that vile and perverse and reprehensible personal attacks are NOT just the domain of the Right..
Now, if you want to equivocate it with a "quantity" discussion or an "intent" discussion, fine. Equivocate to your heart's content..
My original point is and always has been that it DOES happen. And not just from some loudmouth blogger, but from well known Lefties..
The Left has their Hannitys and their Becks and their Coulters and their Limbaughs.
To deny this is to deny reality...
Now, if you want to claim "it's different", that's fine. I know it isn't but I understand why you would think it is...
But whether it's different or not is not my point.
My point is that it IS true...
Michale
And you believe that is SOLELY and COMPLETELY because of Limbaugh?
Of course not ... there's lot of other conservative disinformation sources :)
-David
Of course not ... there's lot of other conservative disinformation sources :)
So, you don't believe that ANY of Obama's actions MIGHT have POSSIBLY contributed to that belief??
I rest my case.. :D
Michale
So, you don't believe that ANY of Obama's actions MIGHT have POSSIBLY contributed to that belief?
No. I rest mine.
-David
No. I rest mine.
I rested mine first!
Neener Neener Neener!! :D
Let me put it another way...
Is there ANY criticism of Obama that comes from Republicans that is justified and correct???
Any at all??
Michale
Is there ANY criticism of Obama that comes from Republicans that is justified and correct?
This doesn't sound like 'resting' ... :)
Absolutely. I think there's a good case to be made about the debt if tied into the overall economic picture.
The trouble is that Republicans have opposed everything and often for no other reason than because they want to make Obama look bad. Every appointment. Every decision. Every thing.
The valid criticisms are overwhelmed by the pettiness of trying to make Obama look bad.
-David
BTW ... to the GOP's credit, they're backing down from their threats to not raise the debt ceiling.
Absolutely. I think there's a good case to be made about the debt if tied into the overall economic picture.
You say "Absolutely" there is valid criticism then go off into some vague IF/Then statement...
Can you pick a specific criticism??
The trouble is that Republicans have opposed everything and often for no other reason than because they want to make Obama look bad.
Just like Democrats did with Bush...
The valid criticisms are overwhelmed by the pettiness of trying to make Obama look bad.
I agree... I felt the same way under Bush.. :D
Michale
BTW ... to the GOP's credit, they're backing down from their threats to not raise the debt ceiling.
That's good. Apparently they are showing more wisdom than Obama did in 2006 :D
hehehehehehehehehe
Michale
Just like Democrats did with Bush.
Huh? Now that's the funniest thing I've heard all day :)
Can you name one agenda item that Bush wasn't able to pass because of Democrats?
Without looking at the Internet?
If we were in a bar where I knew you couldn't look at the Internet, I'd put some serious money on this bet.
-David
Can you name one agenda item that Bush wasn't able to pass because of Democrats?
I can name plenty of agendas that earned Bush disgusting personal attacks..
Whether there were actual policies defeated because of Democrats, yes there were..
Do I recall specifics?? Of course not. I don't even remember what I had for breakfast this morning.. That's why we have the Internet.. :D
"I wrote it in my diary so I wouldn't HAVE to remember!"
-Sean Connery, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
:D
If we were in a bar where I knew you couldn't look at the Internet, I'd put some serious money on this bet.
Hello...??? Smart phones :D
But the fact that you won't let me look it up indicates to me that you KNOW that there ARE instances... :D
Michale
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/uk-fiat-marchionne-china-idUKBRE90G0O620130117
BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:D
Michale
David,
This is likely to get me in trouble with Liz, but......
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/18/bidens-claim-brush-gun-massacre-questioned/
You mentioned something about Democrats always deal in facts??? :D
Michale