Thread: Cost of Boehner's LawSuit

BillyBlastoff - 8/26/2014 at 01:31 AM

Is it worth it? What will the lawsuit actually accomplish?

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/25/john-boehners-lawsuit-obama-cost-tax payers-500hour-attorney-fees.html

quote:

Taxpayers should be outraged. It was revealed today that John Boehner’s lawsuit against President Obama will cost the American people $500 an hour in attorney fees.

According to Frank Thorp of NBC News, the contract for the law firm that Boehner hired to represent the House in his lawsuit against President Obama will cost taxpayers $500/hour.

Thorp tweeted:

Democratic Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel ripped Boehner in a statement, “This outrageous waste of taxpayer dollars is yet another reminder of House Republicans’ misguided priorities. Only in John Boehner’s world does it make sense to pay lawyers $500 per hour to work on a partisan lawsuit while refusing to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 for hardworking Americans trying to feed their families.”

This is an absurd waste of money. House Republicans have been blocking an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed since January because they claim that it is too expensive, but the Speaker is spending more on one hour of legal representation that it would cost in many parts of the country to give an unemployed American their benefits back for a week.

The cost of Boehner’s lawsuit against President Obama has been a closely guarded secret. House Republicans have repeatedly refused to say how much the lawsuit will cost in total, but it is estimated that it will add up to millions of dollars. People need to remember that this frivolous lawsuit represents everything that House Republicans stand for.

The lawsuit will be thrown out of court, but before it is, it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars that could have been used to create jobs, help veterans, or restore benefits to the unemployed. John Boehner is interested in doing what the American people want. His only purpose is to waste taxpayer money with gimmicks that he hopes will keep House Republicans in power.

John Boehner’s Lawsuit Against Obama Will Cost Taxpayers $500/Hour In Attorney Fees was written by Jason Easley for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Mon, Aug 25th, 2014 — All Rights Reserved


2112 - 8/26/2014 at 02:38 AM

It's worth every penny. Must spend whatever it takes to make sure Obama isn't reelected again.


BillyBlastoff - 8/26/2014 at 02:44 AM

Limit that freakin' Socialist to no more than two terms!


lukester420 - 8/26/2014 at 11:12 AM

Forget compromise and trying to find solutions, just sue anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you, it's the American way.


MartinD28 - 8/26/2014 at 11:42 AM

quote:
Limit that freakin' Socialist to no more than two terms!


Give him a chance. Three times - a charm...unprecedented.


OriginalGoober - 8/26/2014 at 11:57 AM

its going to be a long dysfunctional 2 years. vote boehner, reid and all incumbents out .


sixty8 - 8/28/2014 at 04:16 PM

Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.


Bill_Graham - 8/28/2014 at 05:44 PM

Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.


Muleman1994 - 8/28/2014 at 11:13 PM

quote:
Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.

__________________

Not a chance in hell.
The American people know that hiring Obama (an amateur with no professional experience) as President was a big mistake.
They won't let that happen again.


gondicar - 8/28/2014 at 11:31 PM

quote:
quote:
Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.

__________________

Not a chance in hell.
The American people know that hiring Obama (an amateur with no professional experience) as President was a big mistake.
They won't let that happen again.


Ha! That exactly what "some people" were saying in early 2012.


2112 - 8/28/2014 at 11:58 PM

quote:
quote:
Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.

__________________

Not a chance in hell.
The American people know that hiring Obama (an amateur with no professional experience) as President was a big mistake.
They won't let that happen again.



Amateur with no experience? So, exactly who in the Republican Party has more experience than living in the White House for 8 years, being a U.S. Senator for 8 years, and being Secretary of State?


Peachypetewi - 8/29/2014 at 12:46 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.

__________________

Not a chance in hell.
The American people know that hiring Obama (an amateur with no professional experience) as President was a big mistake.
They won't let that happen again.




As opposed to this deep roster of ultra experienced and sane GOP candidates to pick from. Too funny.


Muleman1994 - 8/29/2014 at 02:46 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.

__________________

Not a chance in hell.
The American people know that hiring Obama (an amateur with no professional experience) as President was a big mistake.
They won't let that happen again.



Amateur with no experience? So, exactly who in the Republican Party has more experience than living in the White House for 8 years, being a U.S. Senator for 8 years, and being Secretary of State?

_____________________________________________

1.) " living in the White House for 8 years" as a wife who's husband wouldn't even have sex with her.

2.) " being a U.S. Senator for 8 years" wrote no legislation and avoided ever taking a position.

3.) " being Secretary of State" and had zero accomplishments. No treaties negotiated, no trade agreements and got our Embassy staff in Libya killed. Every time that world was blowing up Hillary was off at a dinner somewhere far far away.

Another empty pantsuit.


BillyBlastoff - 8/29/2014 at 04:10 AM

Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



[Edited on 8/29/2014 by BillyBlastoff]


2112 - 8/29/2014 at 05:51 AM

quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



Really, because I didn't see him answer the question as to who the GOP has to offer that has more experience. I only saw a partisan opinion piece. No answer at all. My guess is that he was sure that Obama was going to lose the last election too because Americans would want someone with more experience, like Romney. So, I really would like a name of someone from the GOP with more experience than Clinton.


Peachypetewi - 8/29/2014 at 09:44 AM

quote:
quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



Really, because I didn't see him answer the question as to who the GOP has to offer that has more experience. I only saw a partisan opinion piece. No answer at all. My guess is that he was sure that Obama was going to lose the last election too because Americans would want someone with more experience, like Romney. So, I really would like a name of someone from the GOP with more experience than Clinton.


It was really fun in 2012 watching all their bat crap nuts candidates rip each other during their numerous debates. It gave very excellent insight into just who was the more insane candidate with the more non reality based far right extreme platform geared toward screwing over the majority so the richest 1% can have a better life.


Muleman1994 - 8/29/2014 at 03:45 PM

quote:
quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



Really, because I didn't see him answer the question as to who the GOP has to offer that has more experience. I only saw a partisan opinion piece. No answer at all. My guess is that he was sure that Obama was going to lose the last election too because Americans would want someone with more experience, like Romney. So, I really would like a name of someone from the GOP with more experience than Clinton.

________________________________________________________________

It is way too early to speculate on who will run for President in 2016.
The Democrats already are aligning behind Hillary of Eliz. Warren. Might as well not even bother with the November mid-terms. They already know as all they major polls clearly show the The Republicans will take over the Senate.
Once the American People have secured total control over The Congress, Obama the incompetent will become impotent.

It is foolish to speculate about the 2016 Presidential race until after November 2014.


Muleman1994 - 8/29/2014 at 03:48 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



Really, because I didn't see him answer the question as to who the GOP has to offer that has more experience. I only saw a partisan opinion piece. No answer at all. My guess is that he was sure that Obama was going to lose the last election too because Americans would want someone with more experience, like Romney. So, I really would like a name of someone from the GOP with more experience than Clinton.


It was really fun in 2012 watching all their bat crap nuts candidates rip each other during their numerous debates. It gave very excellent insight into just who was the more insane candidate with the more non reality based far right extreme platform geared toward screwing over the majority so the richest 1% can have a better life.

____________________________
Nice try but wrong.
90% of the 1% are liberals.
Why do you think Obama & Hillary consistently attend fund-raisers by The Wall Street Elite Class?


2112 - 8/29/2014 at 04:18 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



Really, because I didn't see him answer the question as to who the GOP has to offer that has more experience. I only saw a partisan opinion piece. No answer at all. My guess is that he was sure that Obama was going to lose the last election too because Americans would want someone with more experience, like Romney. So, I really would like a name of someone from the GOP with more experience than Clinton.

________________________________________________________________

It is way too early to speculate on who will run for President in 2016.

The Democrats already are aligning behind Hillary of Eliz. Warren. Might as well not even bother with the November mid-terms. They already know as all they major polls clearly show the The Republicans will take over the Senate.
Once the American People have secured total control over The Congress, Obama the incompetent will become impotent.

It is foolish to speculate about the 2016 Presidential race until after November 2014.




That's funny, you were speculating about the election before by saying nobody will vote for Clinton because she isn't experienced enough, and now that I challenged you to give me a name of a single Republican with more experience, suddenly you can't answer and say it's too early to speculate. The GOP in a nutshell right here - all talk and no action. Criticize without offering any solutions.


MartinD28 - 8/29/2014 at 05:03 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



Really, because I didn't see him answer the question as to who the GOP has to offer that has more experience. I only saw a partisan opinion piece. No answer at all. My guess is that he was sure that Obama was going to lose the last election too because Americans would want someone with more experience, like Romney. So, I really would like a name of someone from the GOP with more experience than Clinton.


It was really fun in 2012 watching all their bat crap nuts candidates rip each other during their numerous debates. It gave very excellent insight into just who was the more insane candidate with the more non reality based far right extreme platform geared toward screwing over the majority so the richest 1% can have a better life.


Stay tuned for Part 2 coming up for the 2016 GOP Primaries. If you liked 2012, you'll love the lead up to 2016. Will the furthest right extremist please stand up.


MartinD28 - 8/29/2014 at 05:10 PM

quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



[Edited on 8/29/2014 by BillyBlastoff]


X2

His point 1. is quite interesting. - 1.) " living in the White House for 8 years" as a wife who's husband wouldn't even have sex with her.

You learn something new everyday. I never knew that this is a qualification for being President. Have sexual acts or frequency been added to textbooks under Presidential Qualifications...just asking?


2112 - 8/29/2014 at 05:27 PM

quote:
quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



[Edited on 8/29/2014 by BillyBlastoff]


X2

His point 1. is quite interesting. - 1.) " living in the White House for 8 years" as a wife who's husband wouldn't even have sex with her.

You learn something new everyday. I never knew that this is a qualification for being President. Have sexual acts or frequency been added to textbooks under Presidential Qualifications...just asking?



My guess is that her husband had sex with her, and anyone else he could. Still not sure why that matters as far as qualifications. I just checked the constitution:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Nope, nothing about sex in there. I think she meets all of that criteria.

[Edited on 8/29/2014 by 2112]


BillyBlastoff - 8/29/2014 at 08:49 PM

Is the vitriol because of the fear that she will get elected?

I admit, I'm concerned that the Senate will go to the Republicans. I don't think they will get a super majority which just means a lot more of nothing getting done, I suspect that is what the Senate is hoping.

But if America wants the Republicans give, so be it.


Peachypetewi - 8/29/2014 at 09:01 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



Really, because I didn't see him answer the question as to who the GOP has to offer that has more experience. I only saw a partisan opinion piece. No answer at all. My guess is that he was sure that Obama was going to lose the last election too because Americans would want someone with more experience, like Romney. So, I really would like a name of someone from the GOP with more experience than Clinton.


It was really fun in 2012 watching all their bat crap nuts candidates rip each other during their numerous debates. It gave very excellent insight into just who was the more insane candidate with the more non reality based far right extreme platform geared toward screwing over the majority so the richest 1% can have a better life.

____________________________
Nice try but wrong.
90% of the 1% are liberals.
Why do you think Obama & Hillary consistently attend fund-raisers by The Wall Street Elite Class?



Again pure fantasy and fiction on your part. Gallup did a study a couple years back 57% of the wealthiest 1 % identify as Republican.


Muleman1994 - 8/29/2014 at 10:47 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



[Edited on 8/29/2014 by BillyBlastoff]


X2

His point 1. is quite interesting. - 1.) " living in the White House for 8 years" as a wife who's husband wouldn't even have sex with her.

You learn something new everyday. I never knew that this is a qualification for being President. Have sexual acts or frequency been added to textbooks under Presidential Qualifications...just asking?

muleman knows! he was in their bedroom [as a sh!t stain on the sheet]

___________________________________________________

Incapable of an intelligent discussion, the liberals descend yet again into personal attacks and the gutter.

I{t is No wonder why y'all are known as the low-information voters.

Curiously y'all attack the messenger but cannot defend your boy Obama.

Come November you liberals will no longer matter.


BillyBlastoff - 8/29/2014 at 11:22 PM

quote:
ncapable of an intelligent discussion, the liberals descend yet again into personal attacks and the gutter.

I{t is No wonder why y'all are known as the low-information voters.

Curiously y'all attack the messenger but cannot defend your boy Obama.

Come November you liberals will no longer matter.



Yeah. We are one big club. We talk alike, we walk alike, we even look alike.

"Low information voters". Hah!

What kind of library have you amassed Muleman? How many books do you read a month?


BillyBlastoff - 8/30/2014 at 12:18 AM

Hey Muleman -

What specifically has your Senator or your Congressman done for you?

What planks of the Republican platform personally help you? Please be specific.


gondicar - 8/30/2014 at 12:21 AM

Ask not...


Muleman1994 - 8/30/2014 at 01:19 AM

quote:
Hey Muleman -

What specifically has your Senator or your Congressman done for you?

What planks of the Republican platform personally help you? Please be specific.

_____________________________________

Easy to answer.

1.) A strong National Security Policy
- Obama doesn't even have a plan.

2..) Fiscal Responsibility.
- Drop the Corporate Tax rate to 20%, & go to a individual flat tax equal to all people.

3.) Eliminate all special interest group tax and law loopholes.

4.) Get the federal govt. out of the people lives and beef up states rights.

5.) Repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a fair and equal system run by the private sector.

6.) Eliminate non-profit status for the race hustlers such as Jackson, Sharpton and Capt. Bow tie.

7.) Require Fed. Gov't workers to live by the same laws and regulations as private citizens.

That is a good start...



Muleman1994 - 8/30/2014 at 01:25 AM

quote:
Hey Muleman -

What specifically has your Senator or your Congressman done for you?

What planks of the Republican platform personally help you? Please be specific.

_____________________________________

I live in Maryland and the state is controlled by Democrats. Pretty mush the reason why businesses are fleeing the state. The ObamaCare system here failed just like the federal system.
The states public school system has dropped to 26th in the nation.
State taxes are excessive and personal liberties are crumbling.

Ever notice that the states doing well are almost all run by Republicans?



BillyBlastoff - 8/30/2014 at 02:46 AM

Muleman - Nothing in your "easy answer" has happened. You can't credit the Republicans with a strong military. Military spending has grown under Obama.

Republicans have had decades to re-vamp tax laws. All they have done is rubber stamped what the lobbies have written. Republicans, the George W. Bush administration turned a surplus into the largest deficit in history. Republicans are not fiscally responsible. Why would you think they are based on the evidence?

Get the Federal Govt out of people's lives? Are you kidding? Republicans try to legislate morality. In Virginia, right next to Maryland, we had an Attny General who wanted to send people's wives to prison if the wife gave the husband oral sex? How is that getting out of people's lives?

Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare but have never come up with an alternative. They don't have a plan.

Your numbers 6 and 7 are too ridiculous to even address.

Your ideal Republican doesn't exist. I don't think there is anyone in Congress doing anything for you. But I bet you will vote for a do nothing Congressperson just because they have an "R" by their name.

You are being duped.


2112 - 8/30/2014 at 05:37 AM

quote:
Ever notice that the states doing well are almost all run by Republicans?


If by doing well you mean having the highest rates of poverty and the lowest per capita income in the country, you're right:

Top 10 states in per capita income: (9 out of 10 are predominantly Democratic states)

1. Maryland
2. New Jersey
3. Alaska
4. Connecticut
5. Hawaii
6. Massachusetts
7. New Hampshire
8. Virginia
9. Minnesota
10. Delaware

Bottom 10 in per capita income: (9 out of 10 are predominantly Republican states)

40. Florida
41. Oklahoma
42. South Carolina
43. Louisiana
44. Tennessee
45. New Mexico
46. Kentucky
47. Alabama
48. West Virgina
49. Arkansas
50. Mississippi

I'd also be interested in knowing what personal liberties are crumbling in Maryland. I know a lot, but I haven't heard about personal liberties crumbling in Maryland. I'd love to hear about it.


alloak41 - 8/30/2014 at 03:48 PM

As a measure of how effectively a State is being run, per capita income is pretty meaningless. Per capita income is more reflective of the composition of industries in different regions.

The States in the bottom ten generally have a larger agricultural share which reflects heavily in the PCI figure. This is nothing new.


BillyBlastoff - 8/30/2014 at 04:07 PM

So you prefer to live in a State with lower per capita income?

"Pretty meaningless."

Wow.

I'm happy to be a champaign liberal in a State where folks walk around with folding money.


alloak41 - 8/30/2014 at 05:10 PM

quote:
So you prefer to live in a State with lower per capita income?

"Pretty meaningless."



Meaningless as far a measure of how well a State is being run, yes.

Per capita income as a determinant of where I live is pretty close to the bottom of the list but thanks for asking.


2112 - 8/30/2014 at 07:53 PM

quote:
quote:
So you prefer to live in a State with lower per capita income?

"Pretty meaningless."



Meaningless as far a measure of how well a State is being run, yes.

Per capita income as a determinant of where I live is pretty close to the bottom of the list but thanks for asking.


Funny, it seems like poverty rates and the ability for a state to attract and hold on to well paying jobs would be a pretty important indication of how well run a state is. Ok, if you don't like that one, how about these:

Education:

Top 10:

1. Massachusetts
2. Vermont
3. New Jersey
4. Colorado
5. Pennsylvania
6. Rhode Island
7. North Carolina
8. Kansas
9. New Hampshire
10. New York

and then there is the bottom of the list:

41. Nebraska
42. Oklahoma
43. Tennessee
44. Arkansas
45. Michigan
46. Missouri
47. Mississippi
48. Louisiana
49. South Carolina
50. West Virginia

See a trend? Well, maybe education isn't important. It's not like the uneducated are voting or anything - Oh wait...


2112 - 8/30/2014 at 08:09 PM

Let's see, if making a decent wage isn't a good indication of a well run state, and receiving a decent education isn't important, I'm trying to figure out what would be important. Let's see, how about safety. Surely all those states run by republicans must have a lower murder rate:

Highest murder rate:

1. Louisiana
2. Mississippi
3. Alabama
4. Michigan
5. South Carolina
6. Missouri
7. Maryland
8. Delaware
9. Tennessee
10. Arkansas

and the states you are least likely to be murdered:

41. Oregon
42. Hawaii
43. Maine
44. Massachusetts
45. Idaho
46. Utah
47. Minnesota
48. Iowa
49. Vermont
50. New Hampshire

Nope. Exactly what criteria do you want to use to show a well run state? Maybe if you consider a state with a lot of blue laws and other restrictions to your personal freedom, well then maybe the Republican run states win. Other than that, I don't see it.


Muleman1994 - 8/30/2014 at 10:35 PM

Muleman - Nothing in your "easy answer" has happened. You can't credit the Republicans with a strong military. Military spending has grown under Obama.


Bull. Obama requiring a massive debt increase agreed to the sequester and used it to slash the military.

Republicans have had decades to re-vamp tax laws. All they have done is rubber stamped what the lobbies have written. Republicans, the George W. Bush administration turned a surplus into the largest deficit in history. Republicans are not fiscally responsible. Why would you think they are based on the evidence?

There was no surplus after the Clinton administration. The fact is a recession was starting.

Get the Federal Govt out of people's lives? Are you kidding? Republicans try to legislate morality. In Virginia, right next to Maryland, we had an Attny General who wanted to send people's wives to prison if the wife gave the husband oral sex? How is that getting out of people's lives?

Sodomy was long ago swept from Virginia law. Bu tif you refer, tight up your butt cheeks.
You liberals really do love your homosexuals. Fine. AIDS will take care of you.
Republican support human life while the Democrat seek to kill babies at will and make tax payers support murder.

Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare but have never come up with an alternative. They don't have a plan.

Crap. The Republican have offer many alternative to ObamaCare but Harry Reid has blocked every bill from even being discussed in The Senate.

Your numbers 6 and 7 are too ridiculous to even address.

Yea, to a liberal I’m sure they appear that way but The American People disagree.

Your ideal Republican doesn't exist. I don't think there is anyone in Congress doing anything for you. But I bet you will vote for a do nothing Congressperson just because they have an "R" by their name.

You are being dupe

Duped?
Nice ‘Crat talking points but The American People disagree.


Muleman1994 - 8/30/2014 at 10:37 PM

quote:
Let's see, if making a decent wage isn't a good indication of a well run state, and receiving a decent education isn't important, I'm trying to figure out what would be important. Let's see, how about safety. Surely all those states run by republicans must have a lower murder rate:

Highest murder rate:

1. Louisiana
2. Mississippi
3. Alabama
4. Michigan
5. South Carolina
6. Missouri
7. Maryland
8. Delaware
9. Tennessee
10. Arkansas

and the states you are least likely to be murdered:

41. Oregon
42. Hawaii
43. Maine
44. Massachusetts
45. Idaho
46. Utah
47. Minnesota
48. Iowa
49. Vermont
50. New Hampshire

Nope. Exactly what criteria do you want to use to show a well run state? Maybe if you consider a state with a lot of blue laws and other restrictions to your personal freedom, well then maybe the Republican run states win. Other than that, I don't see it.


_______________________________________________

Amazing.
Factual data and analytics elude you eh?


Muleman1994 - 8/30/2014 at 10:52 PM

BTW – Have you liberals noticed that the ads being run by the Democrats running for re-election don’t mention ObamaCare or Obama at all?
Few of their ads even mention that they are Democrats?

Having nothing to run on, they are running scared for their jobs.


Muleman1994 - 8/30/2014 at 10:59 PM

quote:
Let's see, if making a decent wage isn't a good indication of a well run state, and receiving a decent education isn't important, I'm trying to figure out what would be important. Let's see, how about safety. Surely all those states run by republicans must have a lower murder rate:

Highest murder rate:

1. Louisiana
2. Mississippi
3. Alabama
4. Michigan
5. South Carolina
6. Missouri
7. Maryland
8. Delaware
9. Tennessee
10. Arkansas

and the states you are least likely to be murdered:

41. Oregon
42. Hawaii
43. Maine
44. Massachusetts
45. Idaho
46. Utah
47. Minnesota
48. Iowa
49. Vermont
50. New Hampshire

Nope. Exactly what criteria do you want to use to show a well run state? Maybe if you consider a state with a lot of blue laws and other restrictions to your personal freedom, well then maybe the Republican run states win. Other than that, I don't see it.

________________________

highest murder rate? This is the "statistic" you go to for the most well run state?

Wow.

Okay.

Since Obama the Incompetent was elected, over 2,000 people have been shot in his city of Chicago. 91% by blacks against backs. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Another liberal failure.

I haven't seen Sharpton, Jackson or Obama marching down the street in Chicago.


2112 - 8/30/2014 at 11:22 PM

What does Obama have to do with either the crime rate or the gun laws in Chicago? Oh, with all the talk of the crime in Chicago on Fox News and right-wing blogs you would think that it was the most dangerous city in America, where as on a per capita basis, it's not even top 10.

But hey, enjoy your right-wing fantasy world because the reality of right-wing world is full of poverty, low paying jobs, poor education, crime and high murder rates. You're welcome to it as I don't really care what happens in other states, I just hope you and the rest of your delusional friends don't drag the rest of the country down to your level.

[Edited on 8/31/2014 by 2112]


Sang - 8/30/2014 at 11:42 PM

...and, Jackson and Sharpton have held meetings in Chicago, and so has Michelle Obama - but believe the right wing blogs instead of the truth..... it's really not that hard to look things up....

[Edited on 8/30/2014 by Sang]


BillyBlastoff - 8/31/2014 at 12:15 AM

quote:
Bull. Obama requiring a massive debt increase agreed to the sequester and used it to slash the military.


Where do you get your fabricated information Muleman?!? Your ignorance is shocking! Shocking I tell you!

Military spending has steadily grown, continues to grow, and won't be slowing under Hilary. We outpace every country in the world by billions and billions. It is complete folly that taxpayer dollars are not diverted to rebuilding our infrastructure.




I stand by what I said - You are being DUPED!


Muleman1994 - 8/31/2014 at 01:08 AM

quote:
...and, Jackson and Sharpton have held meetings in Chicago, and so has Michelle Obama - but believe the right wing blogs instead of the truth..... it's really not that hard to look things up....

[Edited on 8/30/2014 by Sang]

______________________________________________________

Okay, it is not been very effective has it?


Muleman1994 - 8/31/2014 at 01:12 AM

quote:
quote:
Bull. Obama requiring a massive debt increase agreed to the sequester and used it to slash the military.


Where do you get your fabricated information Muleman?!? Your ignorance is shocking! Shocking I tell you!

Military spending has steadily grown, continues to grow, and won't be slowing under Hilary. We outpace every country in the world by billions and billions. It is complete folly that taxpayer dollars are not diverted to rebuilding our infrastructure.

______________________

Cute chart. Did you draw it or borrow it from the DNC?

It is a load of crap... but cute.





I stand by what I said - You are being DUPED!


2112 - 8/31/2014 at 02:26 AM

Oh yes, a person who dismisses facts without oftering contradictory evidence. There is a name for a person like that - a low information voter. Ignorance is bliss I guess, so enjoy that right-wing fantasy world because if you open your eyes you will find that those right-wing states are at the bottom of the barrel in almost every respect.


Sang - 8/31/2014 at 02:58 AM

quote:
quote:
...and, Jackson and Sharpton have held meetings in Chicago, and so has Michelle Obama - but believe the right wing blogs instead of the truth..... it's really not that hard to look things up....

[Edited on 8/30/2014 by Sang]

______________________________________________________

Okay, it is not been very effective has it?





Actually, the number of murders is down quite a bit from last year........and, they are mostly in 3 neighborhoods with a lot of poverty and gangs......and they are starting to get help from the state police to have a bigger police presence - damn those pesky facts......


BillyBlastoff - 8/31/2014 at 03:11 AM

Don't be fooled Muleman. This year Republicans vote on Wednesday in the general election. It is a new rule instituted in the State of Maryland.


alloak41 - 8/31/2014 at 03:39 AM

quote:
But hey, enjoy your right-wing fantasy world because the reality of right-wing world is full of poverty, low paying jobs, poor education, crime and high murder rates. You're welcome to it as I don't really care what happens in other states, I just hope you and the rest of your delusional friends don't drag the rest of the country down to your level.

[Edited on 8/31/2014 by 2112]


Every State has strengths and weaknesses, all of them. Yet all make a contribution to our greatness in one way or another, so don't be such a snob.


BillyBlastoff - 8/31/2014 at 03:45 AM

Some States take a lot more hand outs. How can you say those takers add to the "greatness" of the United States?


2112 - 8/31/2014 at 07:40 AM

quote:
quote:
But hey, enjoy your right-wing fantasy world because the reality of right-wing world is full of poverty, low paying jobs, poor education, crime and high murder rates. You're welcome to it as I don't really care what happens in other states, I just hope you and the rest of your delusional friends don't drag the rest of the country down to your level.

[Edited on 8/31/2014 by 2112]


Every State has strengths and weaknesses, all of them. Yet all make a contribution to our greatness in one way or another, so don't be such a snob.


Although you have a point, it's a shame that so many of these right-wing states continue with policies that leave them behind the rest of the country and it's like they don't even realize it. Now, there are some left-wing cities (Detroit and Washington D.C. immediately come to mind) that have poverty, crime, low wages and poor education as well, but it seems that in those cities corruption is the main problem whereas in the red states it is more policy related.


Muleman1994 - 8/31/2014 at 03:45 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
...and, Jackson and Sharpton have held meetings in Chicago, and so has Michelle Obama - but believe the right wing blogs instead of the truth..... it's really not that hard to look things up....

[Edited on 8/30/2014 by Sang]

______________________________________________________

Okay, it is not been very effective has it?





Actually, the number of murders is down quite a bit from last year........and, they are mostly in 3 neighborhoods with a lot of poverty and gangs......and they are starting to get help from the state police to have a bigger police presence - damn those pesky facts......

______________________________________________________________

Wow, a few less shootings. I’m sure they will be rejoicing at the funerals.

So the Illinois Governor has to send The State Police into Chicago because Obama’s former chief of staff and now mayor Rahm Emanuel cannot deal with the criminal and cultural problems in South Chicago.
Typical.
Democrat Mayors too often fail. Where are Detroit’s Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and New Orleans Mayor Nagin today?
Prison.



Muleman1994 - 8/31/2014 at 04:20 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
...and, Jackson and Sharpton have held meetings in Chicago, and so has Michelle Obama - but believe the right wing blogs instead of the truth..... it's really not that hard to look things up....

[Edited on 8/30/2014 by Sang]

______________________________________________________

Okay, it is not been very effective has it?





Actually, the number of murders is down quite a bit from last year........and, they are mostly in 3 neighborhoods with a lot of poverty and gangs......and they are starting to get help from the state police to have a bigger police presence - damn those pesky facts......


__________________________________________

Wow, a few less shootings. I’m sure they will be rejoicing at the funerals.

So the Illinois Governor has to send The State Police into Chicago because Obama’s former chief of staff and now mayor Rahm Emanuel cannot deal with the criminal and cultural problems in South Chicago.
Typical.
Democrat Mayors too often fail. Where are Detroit’s Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and New Orleans Mayor Nagin today?
Prison.


Bill_Graham - 8/31/2014 at 05:49 PM

Is the GOP really that bankrupt of viable candidates for the 2016 election that they would actually consider this 2X loser? really says something if this guy is their best hope against Hillary.

http://nypost.com/2014/08/30/why-mitt-romney-may-be-the-gops-next-great-hop e-again/


Muleman1994 - 8/31/2014 at 06:19 PM

quote:
Is the GOP really that bankrupt of viable candidates for the 2016 election that they would actually consider this 2X loser? really says something if this guy is their best hope against Hillary.

http://nypost.com/2014/08/30/why-mitt-romney-may-be-the-gops-next-great-hop e-again/

____________________________

There is no one in the GOP running for President yet. The Nov. 2014 elections will shake out the contenders for 2016.

Of course The 'Crats are all in for Hillary. Another liberal with no professional skills and no accomplishments.
Just like the current (and failed ) president.


Bill_Graham - 8/31/2014 at 07:45 PM

Considering the GOP has nothing to offer at this point remotely looking like a viable candidate that could beat Hillary old two time loser Mitt might just be the best choice.

And if the GOP field of candidates for 2016 are as bat sh*t crazy as they were in 2012 we are in for some good comic relief in any case.

[Edited on 8/31/2014 by Bill_Graham]


BillyBlastoff - 8/31/2014 at 07:54 PM

quote:
Of course The 'Crats are all in for Hillary. Another liberal with no professional skills and no accomplishments.
Just like the current (and failed ) president.



Troll.

Muleman you have not made a single point based on any factual information. You have done everything you can on this thread to discount any fact based information. You obviously do not possess the skill to carry out a reasoned debate.

Thank you for playing.


Muleman1994 - 8/31/2014 at 08:51 PM

quote:
quote:
Of course The 'Crats are all in for Hillary. Another liberal with no professional skills and no accomplishments.
Just like the current (and failed ) president.



Troll.

Muleman you have not made a single point based on any factual information. You have done everything you can on this thread to discount any fact based information. You obviously do not possess the skill to carry out a reasoned debate.
_____________________________________________

My statements are factually accurate.

Hillary lived in the White House for 8 years but her only attempt at policy was HilleryCare which crashed and burned.

As Senator, she authored no legislation and spent most of her time running for President but couldn't even get the nomination of her own party.

As Sec. Of state she accomplished nothing. Negotiated no treaty, acquired to trade agreement and when ever there was a crisis, Hillary was off at a dinner party.
She did get our Ambassador in Libya and a few other Americans killed. The same embassy that has now been taken over by terrorists.

You of course have offered not one qualification of Hillarys to be president.

Try again junior.



Muleman1994 - 8/31/2014 at 08:54 PM

Woops, sorry I forgot.
Hillary did try to cover up her first hand involvement in the White Water scandal.
Just about the time her indictment was readied, her lawyer Vince Foster commited suicide.

Then there was the TravelGate scandal...


BillyBlastoff - 8/31/2014 at 09:33 PM

quote:
Try again junior.


What are you? Some telephone tough guy?

I don't support Hillary. Yet she has enormous amounts of experience. Far more than any Presidential candidate in recent history except for George H. W. Bush.

quote:
Negotiated no treaty, acquired to trade agreement and when ever there was a crisis, Hillary was off at a dinner party.


Every crisis? Really? And you know this how?

Arguing with you is an exercise in futility. Make sure you vote on Wednesday. Good bye.


Muleman1994 - 8/31/2014 at 10:58 PM

quote:
quote:
Try again junior.


What are you? Some telephone tough guy?

I don't support Hillary. Yet she has enormous amounts of experience. Far more than any Presidential candidate in recent history except for George H. W. Bush.

quote:
Negotiated no treaty, acquired to trade agreement and when ever there was a crisis, Hillary was off at a dinner party.


Every crisis? Really? And you know this how?

Arguing with you is an exercise in futility. Make sure you vote on Wednesday. Good bye.

_________________________________________________________

So who do you support and why?

No argument here. I know very well that you don't have a clue.


Muleman1994 - 9/1/2014 at 12:05 AM

quote:
Considering the GOP has nothing to offer at this point remotely looking like a viable candidate that could beat Hillary old two time loser Mitt might just be the best choice.

And if the GOP field of candidates for 2016 are as bat sh*t crazy as they were in 2012 we are in for some good comic relief in any case.

[Edited on 8/31/2014 by Bill_Graham]

_______________________________________________

We have heard the claims by liberals about their experience and what they are going to do for The American Citizen. Political rhetoric.

What “experience” does Hillary actually claim?
Sound to me like the experience claimed on resumes that come across my desk.
Of course in nine out of ten cases after I send those resumes to HR I never have to see them again because research and a background check reveal they are either lying or had someone write the resume for them.

That is okay. Send your money to Hillary. She will need another face lift soon.




mainebigdog - 9/1/2014 at 01:42 AM

quote:
Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.



what are republicans supposed to do? they are supposedly the opposition party. if they had obamas views they'd be progressives


mainebigdog - 9/1/2014 at 01:52 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.

__________________

Not a chance in hell.
The American people know that hiring Obama (an amateur with no professional experience) as President was a big mistake.
They won't let that happen again.



Amateur with no experience? So, exactly who in the Republican Party has more experience than living in the White House for 8 years, being a U.S. Senator for 8 years, and being Secretary of State?


name one major piece of legislation she sponsored. her senate record is abysmal. as for her experience as secretary of state, theres more chaos now than ever. reset with Russia, iran supporting isis. north korea. north Africa. the list goes on and on. she certainly isn't hubby bill


mainebigdog - 9/1/2014 at 02:01 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Man Muleman - you got all the answers.



Really, because I didn't see him answer the question as to who the GOP has to offer that has more experience. I only saw a partisan opinion piece. No answer at all. My guess is that he was sure that Obama was going to lose the last election too because Americans would want someone with more experience, like Romney. So, I really would like a name of someone from the GOP with more experience than Clinton.


It was really fun in 2012 watching all their bat crap nuts candidates rip each other during their numerous debates. It gave very excellent insight into just who was the more insane candidate with the more non reality based far right extreme platform geared toward screwing over the majority so the richest 1% can have a better life.

____________________________
Nice try but wrong.
90% of the 1% are liberals.
Why do you think Obama & Hillary consistently attend fund-raisers by The Wall Street Elite Class?



Again pure fantasy and fiction on your part. Gallup did a study a couple years back 57% of the wealthiest 1 % identify as Republican.


so what. she's one of the top 1 percent. you're all fooled. remember a couple of months ago when she said her and bill struggled to pay mortgages. not a single mortgage. out of it completely. it she was such a good candidate she'd be president now instead of Obama. beaten by a relatively unknown.


BoytonBrother - 9/1/2014 at 06:26 PM

The Hillary bashing from conservatives is purely based on a legitimate fear that she will win in 2016. If they truly believed that she can't win, they wouldn't waste any time or energy even thinking about her, let alone listing reasons why she isn't qualified. Funny how you don't hear any Republicans bash or mention Biden.


sixty8 - 9/1/2014 at 07:21 PM

quote:
quote:
Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.



what are republicans supposed to do? they are supposedly the opposition party. if they had obamas views they'd be progressives


Being the opposition party doesn't mean complete obstruction and foolish and costly law suits and foolishly attempted impeachment against Democrati presidents. If anyone deserved to be impeached it was W Bush but with the state of the country in disaray the newly elected Obama administration took the high road and decided against lengthy and costly investigations of the Bush administration for the better of our country. Why can't the GOP be as respectful towards a democrat administration whether they agree on everything or not. The Republicans just can't handle it when the democrats hold the White House and will act like little cry babies who dropped their binkies every time a Dem is top dog.


[Edited on 9/1/2014 by sixty8]


Muleman1994 - 9/1/2014 at 10:35 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.



what are republicans supposed to do? they are supposedly the opposition party. if they had obamas views they'd be progressives

_______________________________

No impeachment discussions have occurred. That comes from the left-wing news media trying to support the futile presidency of Obama.

The Republican know very well that while Obama could easily be impeached by The House, Harry Reid and The Democrats in the Senate would just throw the bill in the trash can just like they have with the 331 bills passed by The House.
Obama has repeatedly broken the law. The Supreme Court has slapped him down 12 times by unanimous vote (that is 9 to nothing for you liberals) for violating the law.

President Bush never violated the law.

Why should the Republicans be “respectful” of a failed president and coward? No respect is due when it is not earned.

We can handle it fine son and come November the Republicans will take back The Senate and put Obama down.



Being the opposition party doesn't mean complete obstruction and foolish and costly law suits and foolishly attempted impeachment against Democrati presidents. If anyone deserved to be impeached it was W Bush but with the state of the country in disaray the newly elected Obama administration took the high road and decided against lengthy and costly investigations of the Bush administration for the better of our country. Why can't the GOP be as respectful towards a democrat administration whether they agree on everything or not. The Republicans just can't handle it when the democrats hold the White House and will act like little cry babies who dropped their binkies every time a Dem is top dog.


[Edited on 9/1/2014 by sixty8]


sixty8 - 9/1/2014 at 10:57 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.



what are republicans supposed to do? they are supposedly the opposition party. if they had obamas views they'd be progressives

_______________________________

W Bush didn't break the law, but him and his henchmen lied and manipulated us into an unwarranted and unnecessary war that cost us tons of American lives and American $$$$$$$$ and did absolutely NOTHING to benefit us. Obama may not be perfect but he is far better than that last moron.

No impeachment discussions have occurred. That comes from the left-wing news media trying to support the futile presidency of Obama.

The Republican know very well that while Obama could easily be impeached by The House, Harry Reid and The Democrats in the Senate would just throw the bill in the trash can just like they have with the 331 bills passed by The House.
Obama has repeatedly broken the law. The Supreme Court has slapped him down 12 times by unanimous vote (that is 9 to nothing for you liberals) for violating the law.

President Bush never violated the law.

Why should the Republicans be “respectful” of a failed president and coward? No respect is due when it is not earned.

We can handle it fine son and come November the Republicans will take back The Senate and put Obama down.



Being the opposition party doesn't mean complete obstruction and foolish and costly law suits and foolishly attempted impeachment against Democrati presidents. If anyone deserved to be impeached it was W Bush but with the state of the country in disaray the newly elected Obama administration took the high road and decided against lengthy and costly investigations of the Bush administration for the better of our country. Why can't the GOP be as respectful towards a democrat administration whether they agree on everything or not. The Republicans just can't handle it when the democrats hold the White House and will act like little cry babies who dropped their binkies every time a Dem is top dog.


[Edited on 9/1/2014 by sixty8]


BillyBlastoff - 9/1/2014 at 11:19 PM

"Put Obama down?"

What does that mean?!?


Muleman1994 - 9/2/2014 at 01:16 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.



what are republicans supposed to do? they are supposedly the opposition party. if they had obamas views they'd be progressives

_____________________________________________

No impeachment discussions have occurred. That comes from the left-wing news media trying to support the futile presidency of Obama.

The Republican know very well that while Obama could easily be impeached by The House, Harry Reid and The Democrats in the Senate would just throw the bill in the trash can just like they have with the 331 bills passed by The House.
Obama has repeatedly broken the law. The Supreme Court has slapped him down 12 times by unanimous vote (that is 9 to nothing for you liberals) for violating the law.

President Bush never violated the law.

Why should the Republicans be “respectful” of a failed president and coward? No respect is due when it is not earned.

We can handle it fine son and come November the Republicans will take back The Senate and put Obama down.



Being the opposition party doesn't mean complete obstruction and foolish and costly law suits and foolishly attempted impeachment against Democrati presidents. If anyone deserved to be impeached it was W Bush but with the state of the country in disaray the newly elected Obama administration took the high road and decided against lengthy and costly investigations of the Bush administration for the better of our country. Why can't the GOP be as respectful towards a democrat administration whether they agree on everything or not. The Republicans just can't handle it when the democrats hold the White House and will act like little cry babies who dropped their binkies every time a Dem is top dog.


[Edited on 9/1/2014 by sixty8]



____________________________________________

The opposition party is the modern term for the party not currently in power.

It is the responsibility of all citizen to stand opposed to a corrupt administration.

The Obama administration cut and ran from Iraq leaving the terrorists to take over.


Muleman1994 - 9/2/2014 at 01:18 AM

quote:
"Put Obama down?"

What does that mean?!?


__________________________________________

The Congress has the power of the purse.
We will take the citizens money away from Obama making him impotent.

Obama will reign over the longest lame-duke presidency in history and that will be his legacy.


mainebigdog - 9/2/2014 at 02:15 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.



what are republicans supposed to do? they are supposedly the opposition party. if they had obamas views they'd be progressives


Being the opposition party doesn't mean complete obstruction and foolish and costly law suits and foolishly attempted impeachment against Democrati presidents. If anyone deserved to be impeached it was W Bush but with the state of the country in disaray the newly elected Obama administration took the high road and decided against lengthy and costly investigations of the Bush administration for the better of our country. Why can't the GOP be as respectful towards a democrat administration whether they agree on everything or not. The Republicans just can't handle it when the democrats hold the White House and will act like little cry babies who dropped their binkies every time a Dem is top dog.


[Edited on 9/1/2014 by sixty8]


I think you're confused as to who impeaches the president. what you wrote implies the white house has this authority. it's the house of representitives that starts the proceedings. Pelosi could have started proceedings against bush but didn't. why? after the 2006 elections they had control of the house.

when Clinton was president the republicans controlled the house for six years. the six years you progressives tout as a great span of economic growth. it's obamas way or no way. he's unwilling to sit down and hash it out


MartinD28 - 9/2/2014 at 04:42 PM

quote:
The Hillary bashing from conservatives is purely based on a legitimate fear that she will win in 2016. If they truly believed that she can't win, they wouldn't waste any time or energy even thinking about her, let alone listing reasons why she isn't qualified. Funny how you don't hear any Republicans bash or mention Biden.


You are correct.

Waiting to hear the name of a Republican that they think can actually beat Hillary if she runs. I only hope Ted Cruz is in the mix. He can fill the void left behind by Palin & Bachmann.


Muleman1994 - 9/2/2014 at 07:08 PM

quote:
quote:
The Hillary bashing from conservatives is purely based on a legitimate fear that she will win in 2016. If they truly believed that she can't win, they wouldn't waste any time or energy even thinking about her, let alone listing reasons why she isn't qualified. Funny how you don't hear any Republicans bash or mention Biden.


You are correct.

Waiting to hear the name of a Republican that they think can actually beat Hillary if she runs. I only hope Ted Cruz is in the mix. He can fill the void left behind by Palin & Bachmann.

____________________________

We will let you know the names in January after The Republicans take back The Senate.
With Hillary's empty resume it won't be difficult.


BillyBlastoff - 9/2/2014 at 07:27 PM

quote:
We will let you know the names in January after The Republicans take back The Senate.


You make yourself sound like a high powered Republican decision maker. I'm surprised. I took you for a duped, mislead, mouthpiece that parrots unsubstantiated excrement from right wing web sites.

My bad.


Muleman1994 - 9/3/2014 at 12:48 AM

quote:
quote:
We will let you know the names in January after The Republicans take back The Senate.


You make yourself sound like a high powered Republican decision maker. I'm surprised. I took you for a duped, mislead, mouthpiece that parrots unsubstantiated excrement from right wing web sites.

My bad.


Just ell informed son.
You should try it.


mainebigdog - 9/3/2014 at 01:52 AM

another insightful post


BillyBlastoff - 9/3/2014 at 01:59 AM

quote:
Just ell informed son.
You should try it.


Did you misspell "ill" Boy?


Muleman1994 - 9/3/2014 at 02:54 AM

The personal attacks continue and not one of you can justify Obama's failed policies or even his presidency.
No wonder y'all will lose this November.


BoytonBrother - 9/3/2014 at 03:44 AM

quote:
The personal attacks continue and not one of you can justify Obama's failed policies or even his presidency.


Because that claim is subjective?


BillyBlastoff - 9/3/2014 at 01:28 PM

quote:
The personal attacks continue and not one of you can justify Obama's failed policies or even his presidency.


My 401K, since June has increased by tens of thousands.

Gas prices are down.

Troops are allegedly out of Iraq. (I don't believe that but I know we are wasting less money over there.)

Bin Laden is dead.

It is accepted to where a tan suit before Labor Day.

I'm getting great medical care and paying about the same for my insurance - a little higher on some co-pays but I think that will even out when I meet my out of pocket maximum.

Bottom line is my financial well being is far better than when Bush was in office.

There is plenty I don't like about the Obama administration. Far more I don't like about this Congress. Far, far more I don't like about the Republican and Democrat parties.

With all I don't like, after the disaster that was Bush/Cheney, I don't think I'll ever vote for a another clown car Republican ticket in my life.

A true anti-war candidate might make me think otherwise.


alloak41 - 9/3/2014 at 02:24 PM

quote:
quote:
The personal attacks continue and not one of you can justify Obama's failed policies or even his presidency.


My 401K, since June has increased by tens of thousands.

Gas prices are down.

Troops are allegedly out of Iraq. (I don't believe that but I know we are wasting less money over there.)

Bin Laden is dead.

It is accepted to where a tan suit before Labor Day.

I'm getting great medical care and paying about the same for my insurance - a little higher on some co-pays but I think that will even out when I meet my out of pocket maximum.

Bottom line is my financial well being is far better than when Bush was in office.

There is plenty I don't like about the Obama administration. Far more I don't like about this Congress. Far, far more I don't like about the Republican and Democrat parties.

With all I don't like, after the disaster that was Bush/Cheney, I don't think I'll ever vote for a another clown car Republican ticket in my life.

A true anti-war candidate might make me think otherwise.



1. Imagine where it would be had we experienced anywhere close to a robust recovery.

2. When they've been higher it's not Obama's fault, yet he gets credit when they are lower?

3. The Iraq (and Middle East) that Obama inherited was much more stable than it is today.

4. ISIS (the JV) is very much alive.

5. ?

6. Great medical care was not available until Obama was sworn in.

7. You must be one of the lucky ones that still have a job.

8. When has Congress ever been popular?

9. Nobody would expect you to.

10. We should continue to hollow out the military, take limited action and hope things just work themselves out.


Muleman1994 - 9/3/2014 at 04:01 PM

"Gas prices are down."

Gas prices have doubled under the Obama administration.
When President Bush left office the national average was $1.82 - $1.84.



dougrhon - 9/3/2014 at 04:11 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.

__________________

Not a chance in hell.
The American people know that hiring Obama (an amateur with no professional experience) as President was a big mistake.
They won't let that happen again.



Amateur with no experience? So, exactly who in the Republican Party has more experience than living in the White House for 8 years, being a U.S. Senator for 8 years, and being Secretary of State?


Living in the WH isn't experience or else every first lady would be qualified to be president by virtue of marriage. Not very feminist. Clinton now has signficant experience. Unfortunately that experience showed her to be in completely over her head. Obama had no relevant experience and should have had the smarts to surround himself with competent experienced people to adivse him.


dougrhon - 9/3/2014 at 04:24 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.

__________________

Not a chance in hell.
The American people know that hiring Obama (an amateur with no professional experience) as President was a big mistake.
They won't let that happen again.



Amateur with no experience? So, exactly who in the Republican Party has more experience than living in the White House for 8 years, being a U.S. Senator for 8 years, and being Secretary of State?


name one major piece of legislation she sponsored. her senate record is abysmal. as for her experience as secretary of state, theres more chaos now than ever. reset with Russia, iran supporting isis. north korea. north Africa. the list goes on and on. she certainly isn't hubby bill


She was woefully unqualified to run the State Department. Really. All other recent presidents have had serious foreign policy thinkers and careerists advising them. I didn't like and agree with them all but never before has the Secretary of State been a job you give to a political rival to placate them. Bush had Colin Powell and then Condi Rice, a phd in international studies. Clinton had Warren Christopher, a career foreign affairs figure and later Madeline Albright, another phd in international affairs. Reagan had George Schultz. Even if some turned out to not be so great all had serious qualifications for the jobs they were given. Obama appoints blowhards hacks and political operatives to the most important posts. It is no surprise the world is in flames and he apears to have no idea what to do. As for Hillary Clinton, in terms of experience she is as qualified as anyone else but I have seen nothing from her that makes me think she would be an effective leader with vision and good judgment. Of course she would be an improvement over Obama. Anyone would. Literally anyone.


dougrhon - 9/3/2014 at 04:28 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.



what are republicans supposed to do? they are supposedly the opposition party. if they had obamas views they'd be progressives


Being the opposition party doesn't mean complete obstruction and foolish and costly law suits and foolishly attempted impeachment against Democrati presidents. If anyone deserved to be impeached it was W Bush but with the state of the country in disaray the newly elected Obama administration took the high road and decided against lengthy and costly investigations of the Bush administration for the better of our country. Why can't the GOP be as respectful towards a democrat administration whether they agree on everything or not. The Republicans just can't handle it when the democrats hold the White House and will act like little cry babies who dropped their binkies every time a Dem is top dog.


[Edited on 9/1/2014 by sixty8]


But it DOES mean blocking legislation they disagree with. Politics is the art of the possible and if the president wants legislation passed he needs to knock heads together on both sides and get them to compromise. You can believe until the cows come home that the Republicans will automatically vote against anything he proposes but there is simply no evidence of that. Other presidents have recognized what is possible and have worked with hostile opposition leaders to get things done. Obama's endless arrogance and refusal to even deign to play the game of politics makes such a thing impossible for him. The only politics he plays is the electoral kind. He actually likes the obstruction because it enables him to go to his 300 plus fundraisers evey night and rail against the horrible Republicans. He is MUCH more interested in that than actually improving the lot of the nation by careful compromise.


sixty8 - 9/3/2014 at 05:10 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.



what are republicans supposed to do? they are supposedly the opposition party. if they had obamas views they'd be progressives


Being the opposition party doesn't mean complete obstruction and foolish and costly law suits and foolishly attempted impeachment against Democrati presidents. If anyone deserved to be impeached it was W Bush but with the state of the country in disaray the newly elected Obama administration took the high road and decided against lengthy and costly investigations of the Bush administration for the better of our country. Why can't the GOP be as respectful towards a democrat administration whether they agree on everything or not. The Republicans just can't handle it when the democrats hold the White House and will act like little cry babies who dropped their binkies every time a Dem is top dog.


[Edited on 9/1/2014 by sixty8]


But it DOES mean blocking legislation they disagree with. Politics is the art of the possible and if the president wants legislation passed he needs to knock heads together on both sides and get them to compromise. You can believe until the cows come home that the Republicans will automatically vote against anything he proposes but there is simply no evidence of that. Other presidents have recognized what is possible and have worked with hostile opposition leaders to get things done. Obama's endless arrogance and refusal to even deign to play the game of politics makes such a thing impossible for him. The only politics he plays is the electoral kind. He actually likes the obstruction because it enables him to go to his 300 plus fundraisers evey night and rail against the horrible Republicans. He is MUCH more interested in that than actually improving the lot of the nation by careful compromise.


Yeah, problem with your argument is that they have also obstructed and shot down many things that they previously supported which is what makes their obstruction so obvious. They just don't wany him to get positive credit for anything even if it would benefit the American people. Just watch should they retake the White House how many of the new Republican president's ideas look just like Obama's ideas but of course they will say they are different because they were ours. Watch how fast they float infrastructure funding after refusing to sign an infrastructure bill that has been waiting to be passed for years. They won't sign it under Obama because it would create a boatload of jobs lowering the unemployment rate further while stimulating the economy at the same time and God forbid Obama got credit for that. They said it from day one of his presidency. Their one and only goal was to make Obama a one term president. When they failed brutally at that goal they switched to now we block everything so he has as small a legacy as possible. That is their one and only agenda because they have no other ideas.


BillyBlastoff - 9/3/2014 at 06:05 PM

quote:
1. Imagine where it would be had we experienced anywhere close to a robust recovery.



So a Republican, George W. Bush, turned a surplus into the largest deficit in history, nearly destroyed the world's economy and you want me to be angry because that economy was turned around. A Democrat didn't do a good enough job fixing the toxic dump leftover from the Republican - so???

Is that the best you got Alloak? Don't you see the Party you support created the mess? At least it is getting better Dude - not worse like what happened under the Republicans.

God I feel like I'm on a roundabout circus ride with clowns jumping up and shouting non sensical psychedelic catch phrases.


gondicar - 9/3/2014 at 06:19 PM

quote:
"Gas prices are down."

Gas prices have doubled under the Obama administration.
When President Bush left office the national average was $1.82 - $1.84.

That's because the entire economy was in a complete free fall when Bush left office. Six months before he left office, the U.S. average retail price of regular gasoline reached $4.11 per gallon on July 7, 2008. On an inflation-adjusted basis (expressed in real June 2014 dollars using the Consumer Price Index) the highest monthly average price EVER was $4.43 per gallon in June 2008. Today the ave price for reg is $3.43, down 4.5% from a year ago.


BoytonBrother - 9/3/2014 at 07:21 PM

I love when people on a music site who never majored in political science or held any job related to politics, believe they are qualified to accurately judge the qualifications and experience of politicians in Washington.


Muleman1994 - 9/3/2014 at 10:14 PM

quote:
quote:
1. Imagine where it would be had we experienced anywhere close to a robust recovery.



So a Republican, George W. Bush, turned a surplus into the largest deficit in history, nearly destroyed the world's economy and you want me to be angry because that economy was turned around. A Democrat didn't do a good enough job fixing the toxic dump leftover from the Republican - so???

Is that the best you got Alloak? Don't you see the Party you support created the mess? At least it is getting better Dude - not worse like what happened under the Republicans.

God I feel like I'm on a roundabout circus ride with clowns jumping up and shouting non sensical psychedelic catch phrases.


______________________________________________

Wrong again son.

Obama has added more to the debt is only 5 years than President Bush did, while fighting two wars that were supported by the 'Crats, in eight years.

Do math elude you or just the facts?


jkeller - 9/3/2014 at 10:26 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
1. Imagine where it would be had we experienced anywhere close to a robust recovery.



So a Republican, George W. Bush, turned a surplus into the largest deficit in history, nearly destroyed the world's economy and you want me to be angry because that economy was turned around. A Democrat didn't do a good enough job fixing the toxic dump leftover from the Republican - so???

Is that the best you got Alloak? Don't you see the Party you support created the mess? At least it is getting better Dude - not worse like what happened under the Republicans.

God I feel like I'm on a roundabout circus ride with clowns jumping up and shouting non sensical psychedelic catch phrases.


______________________________________________

Wrong again son.

Obama has added more to the debt is only 5 years than President Bush did, while fighting two wars that were supported by the 'Crats, in eight years.

Do math elude you or just the facts?



Son, you need to learn the difference between the debt and the deficit if you are going to act like an expert.


BillyBlastoff - 9/3/2014 at 11:07 PM

Eluded and deluded.


alloak41 - 9/4/2014 at 01:43 AM

quote:
So a Republican, George W. Bush, turned a surplus into the largest deficit in history, nearly destroyed the world's economy and you want me to be angry because that economy was turned around. A Democrat didn't do a good enough job fixing the toxic dump leftover from the Republican - so???


Not really, no. Check what Reagan did with the toxic dump economy that Carter left. That's what a robust recovery looks like.

BTW, worthless subprime loans almost destroyed the economy, not Bush. Ever heard of the CRA?


Sang - 9/4/2014 at 01:59 AM

Obama owns everything, Bush owned nothing. Got it.


2112 - 9/4/2014 at 02:25 AM

quote:
quote:
So a Republican, George W. Bush, turned a surplus into the largest deficit in history, nearly destroyed the world's economy and you want me to be angry because that economy was turned around. A Democrat didn't do a good enough job fixing the toxic dump leftover from the Republican - so???


Not really, no. Check what Reagan did with the toxic dump economy that Carter left. That's what a robust recovery looks like.

BTW, worthless subprime loans almost destroyed the economy, not Bush. Ever heard of the CRA?




I love this. Problems with the VA are Obama's problem because he had 6 years to fix it. But problems Bush might have inherited are never his fault, even though he had 6 years to fix them. Got it.


alloak41 - 9/4/2014 at 02:53 AM

quote:
Is that the best you got Alloak? Don't you see the Party you support created the mess?



Oh, you bet!

I'll never forget the likes of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters sounding their repeated warnings, pleading for more stringent GSE oversight, tighter lending standards, factual credit reporting, traditional down payments, all down the line.

Nobody would listen.


Right.


alloak41 - 9/4/2014 at 02:59 AM

quote:

I love this. Problems with the VA are Obama's problem because he had 6 years to fix it. But problems Bush might have inherited are never his fault, even though he had 6 years to fix them. Got it.


Bush should have done what he could to get the subprime loan situation under control. Question is how much he would have been permitted to do about it

Probably not much. I mean, we're talking about a period where credit reports were considered "racist" by the opposing party.


alloak41 - 9/4/2014 at 03:19 AM

quote:
Obama owns everything, Bush owned nothing. Got it.


No, toxic loans in the banking systems put the economy on the brink and that point was reached on Bush's watch. He owns it.

The problem is, the Democrats championed policies that led to that point then stood back and acted like they had nothing to do with it.

Gutless weasels.


BillyBlastoff - 9/4/2014 at 03:33 AM

quote:
I mean, we're talking about a period where credit reports were considered "racist" by the opposing party.


Citation please.

Obama has done better with the economy than Bush. How can you deny that alloak41?


2112 - 9/4/2014 at 04:41 AM

quote:

The problem is, the Democrats championed policies that led to that point then stood back and acted like they had nothing to do with it.

Gutless weasels.


Funny, that sounds exactly like what the Republicans did with the run up in debt.


Muleman1994 - 9/4/2014 at 12:52 PM

quote:
quote:

The problem is, the Democrats championed policies that led to that point then stood back and acted like they had nothing to do with it.

Gutless weasels.


Funny, that sounds exactly like what the Republicans did with the run up in debt.

______________________________________

Obama has added more to the national debt in 5 years than President Bush did in 8 years.


BillyBlastoff - 9/4/2014 at 01:00 PM

Ever had a wife who ran up a credit card? What happens to the interest when that debt goes up by over 4 trillion? That interest kinda accrues - don't it son?

Bush started with a surplus son. Obama started with a maxed out credit card son.

Both parties are to blame. The high cost of our military is killing this country.

It is high time we cut the Pentagon's budget in half.


alloak41 - 9/4/2014 at 01:41 PM

quote:
Bush started with a surplus son.

Obama started with a maxed out credit card son.



1. The 104th Congress had a little something to do with that.

2. So the answer is to double the balance? If the card was "maxed out" the balance would still be at $9 Trillion.


alloak41 - 9/4/2014 at 01:41 PM

quote:
Obama has done better with the economy than Bush.


By what measure?


alloak41 - 9/4/2014 at 01:44 PM

quote:
quote:

The problem is, the Democrats championed policies that led to that point then stood back and acted like they had nothing to do with it.

Gutless weasels.


Funny, that sounds exactly like what the Republicans did with the run up in debt.


Not really. Democrats love to repeat the myth that Bush "crashed the economy." I haven't heard one Republican pin all the blame for the national debt on Democrats.


alloak41 - 9/4/2014 at 02:06 PM

Democrats had nothing to do with it. It was all Bush's fault...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM


gondicar - 9/4/2014 at 02:07 PM

quote:
The 104th Congress had a little something to do with that.

I guess the job description for POTUS changed when Obama took office, because now all we hear from you and others is that it isn't up to Congress at all but rather POTUS has to lead Congress to water and make them drink and all of the failures of Congress are really just because of POTUS.

quote:
I haven't heard one Republican pin all the blame for the national debt on Democrats.

Not one? Really? Wow. Don't you know by now that all these people do is blame each other for everything?

"President Obama and Democrats' spending addiction has driven our national debt to historic proportions, maxed out our national credit card and has now led to the Democrat Downgrade of our country's AAA credit rating," Ohio GOP chairman Kevin DeWine said.

President Obama 'built' nation's $16 trillion debt, GOP Rep. Reid Ribble says

Rep. Tim Walberg blames President Barack Obama as debt hits $16 trillion.


Muleman1994 - 9/4/2014 at 02:11 PM

quote:
quote:
The 104th Congress had a little something to do with that.

I guess the job description for POTUS changed when Obama took office, because now all we hear from you and others is that it isn't up to Congress at all but rather POTUS has to lead Congress to water and make them drink and all of the failures of Congress are really just because of POTUS.

quote:
I haven't heard one Republican pin all the blame for the national debt on Democrats.

Not one? Really? Wow. Don't you know by now that all these people do is blame each other for everything?

"President Obama and Democrats' spending addiction has driven our national debt to historic proportions, maxed out our national credit card and has now led to the Democrat Downgrade of our country's AAA credit rating," Ohio GOP chairman Kevin DeWine said.

President Obama 'built' nation's $16 trillion debt, GOP Rep. Reid Ribble says

Rep. Tim Walberg blames President Barack Obama as debt hits $16 trillion.

__________________________________

Exactly. The Republicans see the economic failures of Obama clearly.
Sadly, the democrats simply want to tax and spend more.


Bill_Graham - 9/4/2014 at 02:15 PM

quote:
Ever had a wife who ran up a credit card? What happens to the interest when that debt goes up by over 4 trillion? That interest kinda accrues - don't it son?

Bush started with a surplus son. Obama started with a maxed out credit card son.

Both parties are to blame. The high cost of our military is killing this country.

It is high time we cut the Pentagon's budget in half.




Exactly! Our Defense budget is obscene and exceeds the total spending of the next 10 countries combined. We dwarf the spending of our two biggest bogey men China and Russia by 3X and 6X respectively. We could cut the Defense budget in half and still outspend those two countries combined. That is money which could better be spent repairing our crumbling infrastructure here at home. We need to stop being the worlds policemen and ask our Allies to share in the burden.

Not to mention the Iraq/ Afghanistan wars have cost over $2 Trillion to date and it is estimated the ultimate cost will be closer to $6 Trillion when all is said and done when you include veteran benefits and healthcare (which is well deserved considering our soldiers sacrifices). This accounts for 20% of the total National debt from 2001- 2012.

Bin Laden must be laughing from the grave as he accomplished what he set out to do. Get us trapped in knee jerk unwinnable wars in the Middle East which bleeds our economy from within. So I guess he could say rightfully say "Mission Accomplished".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war -costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_st ory.html


Bill_Graham - 9/4/2014 at 02:27 PM

quote:
quote:
So a Republican, George W. Bush, turned a surplus into the largest deficit in history, nearly destroyed the world's economy and you want me to be angry because that economy was turned around. A Democrat didn't do a good enough job fixing the toxic dump leftover from the Republican - so???


Not really, no. Check what Reagan did with the toxic dump economy that Carter left. That's what a robust recovery looks like.

BTW, worthless subprime loans almost destroyed the economy, not Bush. Ever heard of the CRA?




Funny how you conservatives like to bring up your hero Ronald Regan when he did exactly what you accuse the Democrats of doing which is tax, spend, and bloat the govermnent. The deficit climbed under his administration as did unemployment, income inequality and the size of the government.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/



Muleman1994 - 9/4/2014 at 02:50 PM

Do you lean left or right?

http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium= cpc&utm_campaign=q_us_t4

Take a quiz.


2112 - 9/4/2014 at 03:08 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The 104th Congress had a little something to do with that.

I guess the job description for POTUS changed when Obama took office, because now all we hear from you and others is that it isn't up to Congress at all but rather POTUS has to lead Congress to water and make them drink and all of the failures of Congress are really just because of POTUS.

quote:
I haven't heard one Republican pin all the blame for the national debt on Democrats.

Not one? Really? Wow. Don't you know by now that all these people do is blame each other for everything?

"President Obama and Democrats' spending addiction has driven our national debt to historic proportions, maxed out our national credit card and has now led to the Democrat Downgrade of our country's AAA credit rating," Ohio GOP chairman Kevin DeWine said.

President Obama 'built' nation's $16 trillion debt, GOP Rep. Reid Ribble says

Rep. Tim Walberg blames President Barack Obama as debt hits $16 trillion.

__________________________________

Exactly. The Republicans see the economic failures of Obama clearly.
Sadly, the democrats simply want to tax and spend more.



You mean the Republicans either aren't smart enough to understand or refuse to acknowledge that Bush's spending on 2 wars, Medicare Part B, insufficient revenue cause by tax cuts, and a crashed economy that was in place on the day Obama took office still continue to drag the economy and will continue to do so long after Obama leaves office. Democrat tax and spend policies didn't run up the debt; Republican spend and spend policies did.


alloak41 - 9/4/2014 at 03:24 PM


Democrat tax and spend policies didn't run up the debt; Republican spend and spend policies did.


In other words you're saying that Democrat policies like Social Security, Medicare, Vietnam War, War on Poverty, ect haven't contributed to the debt.

With a straight face you're saying this?


2112 - 9/4/2014 at 03:48 PM

quote:

Democrat tax and spend policies didn't run up the debt; Republican spend and spend policies did.


In other words you're saying that Democrat policies like Social Security, Medicare, Vietnam War, War on Poverty, ect haven't contributed to the debt.

With a straight face you're saying this?


Well, those were all in place before the start of the run up in debt under Reagan.


dougrhon - 9/4/2014 at 04:19 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Witch hunts against the Clintons and now more wasted tax payer money stupidity by the GOP against Obama. Meanwhile the W Bush administration, the one that should have been heavily investigated for the myriad of trouble they caused were let off the hook. Bottom line is the Republicans can't handle having a Democrat in the White House and will do everything in their power to disrupt and obstruct them when they are. It is so obvious that it boggles the mind.



what are republicans supposed to do? they are supposedly the opposition party. if they had obamas views they'd be progressives


Being the opposition party doesn't mean complete obstruction and foolish and costly law suits and foolishly attempted impeachment against Democrati presidents. If anyone deserved to be impeached it was W Bush but with the state of the country in disaray the newly elected Obama administration took the high road and decided against lengthy and costly investigations of the Bush administration for the better of our country. Why can't the GOP be as respectful towards a democrat administration whether they agree on everything or not. The Republicans just can't handle it when the democrats hold the White House and will act like little cry babies who dropped their binkies every time a Dem is top dog.


[Edited on 9/1/2014 by sixty8]


But it DOES mean blocking legislation they disagree with. Politics is the art of the possible and if the president wants legislation passed he needs to knock heads together on both sides and get them to compromise. You can believe until the cows come home that the Republicans will automatically vote against anything he proposes but there is simply no evidence of that. Other presidents have recognized what is possible and have worked with hostile opposition leaders to get things done. Obama's endless arrogance and refusal to even deign to play the game of politics makes such a thing impossible for him. The only politics he plays is the electoral kind. He actually likes the obstruction because it enables him to go to his 300 plus fundraisers evey night and rail against the horrible Republicans. He is MUCH more interested in that than actually improving the lot of the nation by careful compromise.


Yeah, problem with your argument is that they have also obstructed and shot down many things that they previously supported which is what makes their obstruction so obvious. They just don't wany him to get positive credit for anything even if it would benefit the American people. Just watch should they retake the White House how many of the new Republican president's ideas look just like Obama's ideas but of course they will say they are different because they were ours. Watch how fast they float infrastructure funding after refusing to sign an infrastructure bill that has been waiting to be passed for years. They won't sign it under Obama because it would create a boatload of jobs lowering the unemployment rate further while stimulating the economy at the same time and God forbid Obama got credit for that. They said it from day one of his presidency. Their one and only goal was to make Obama a one term president. When they failed brutally at that goal they switched to now we block everything so he has as small a legacy as possible. That is their one and only agenda because they have no other ideas.


You say that one term goal thing as if its not always the hope and plan of the opposition party to make the president a one term president. I dare say Democrats in 2002 were pretty determined to make Bush a one term president. Meanwhile you continue to repeat that Republicans favored things under Bush they then opposed under Obama and cite that as evidence that the obstruction is purely not Obama's fault. Please cite some of those things with links. Bear in mind the political trick of attaching a measure that has bi-partisan support to a larger bill the opposition opposes in order to have talking points. For example attaching a funding bill for Israel's iron dome to a larger bill that Republicans consistently opposed. The purpose? To get a headline that says "GOP votes against Iron Dome Funding". The next day naturally the Iron Dome money was approved separately.

So let's have some of those examples of the switching of positions. Here's one, Supporting the Iraq War and then turning against it later when the politics switched. Oh wait that wasn't a Republican. That was John Kerry and Joe Biden.


dougrhon - 9/4/2014 at 04:21 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Imagine how pissed the GOP is going to be when Hillary gets elected.

__________________

Not a chance in hell.
The American people know that hiring Obama (an amateur with no professional experience) as President was a big mistake.
They won't let that happen again.



Amateur with no experience? So, exactly who in the Republican Party has more experience than living in the White House for 8 years, being a U.S. Senator for 8 years, and being Secretary of State?


Living in the WH isn't experience or else every first lady would be qualified to be president by virtue of marriage. Not very feminist. Clinton now has signficant experience. Unfortunately that experience showed her to be in completely over her head. Obama had no relevant experience and should have had the smarts to surround himself with competent experienced people to adivse him.
She was also a senator[D-NY] and secretary of state. [did you forget]


Note my second sentence where I say she NOW has significant experience. Unfortunately that experience showed her to be in completely over her head. That experience makes me infinitely less likely to ever vote for her.


dougrhon - 9/4/2014 at 04:23 PM

quote:
I love when people on a music site who never majored in political science or held any job related to politics, believe they are qualified to accurately judge the qualifications and experience of politicians in Washington.


I see. So we should shut up and do as our betters tell us. That is your idea of Democracy? And I'm sure you will hold to that view when a person whose views you oppose is in the White House.


BillyBlastoff - 9/4/2014 at 04:30 PM

quote:
In other words you're saying that Democrat policies like Social Security, Medicare, Vietnam War, War on Poverty, ect haven't contributed to the debt.

With a straight face you're saying this?


Wasn't Vietnam over when Clinton built a surplus?

I think there was Social Security, Medicare, (War on Poverty - not winning), all in place when Bush took over a surplus.


dougrhon - 9/4/2014 at 04:54 PM

quote:
quote:
In other words you're saying that Democrat policies like Social Security, Medicare, Vietnam War, War on Poverty, ect haven't contributed to the debt.

With a straight face you're saying this?


Wasn't Vietnam over when Clinton built a surplus?

I think there was Social Security, Medicare, (War on Poverty - not winning), all in place when Bush took over a surplus.


Things are not so simple. Without the incredibly robust growth that began in the Reagan years the budget NEVER would have been balanced. And Clinton didn't "build a surplus." He and a Republican Congress worked together to create a surplus budget. Do you realistically think that a left wing Democratic Congress would have agreed to the cuts necessary to bring about that surplus? The reason for the Reagan deficits is that while Congress approved his tax cuts (necessary to spur economic recovery) they refused to approve his proposed spending cuts. Despite what some believe Congress is not useless and in actuality passes all budgets and spending bills. Nothing happens without Congressional and presidential approval (as very few vetoes are overridden) In the end all laws are a compromise between Congress and the president. It is wrong to say Reagan caused the deficit and it is wrong to say Clinton brought about a surplus. Congress is part of both equations.


gondicar - 9/4/2014 at 05:17 PM

quote:
Congress is part of both equations.

Too bad more people can't/won't acknowledge that basic fact.


Sang - 9/4/2014 at 06:05 PM

quote:

So let's have some of those examples of the switching of positions. Here's one, Supporting the Iraq War and then turning against it later when the politics switched. Oh wait that wasn't a Republican. That was John Kerry and Joe Biden.



How about supporting affordable care when it was Romney's plan in Massachusetts, but being against it when it became Obamacare? Even Romney had to back away from it instead of embracing it and taking credit for it..... because the republicans had taken a position against it because it might make Obama look good....


sixty8 - 9/4/2014 at 06:56 PM

quote:
Bush started with a surplus son. Obama started with a maxed out credit card son.

Both parties are to blame. The high cost of our military is killing this country.

It is high time we cut the Pentagon's budget in half.
quote:


Couldn't agree more. Problem is the rest of the world expect us to be their free police force paid for by the American people. We do all of the dirty work to help everybody yet we get the bill for it.


sixty8 - 9/4/2014 at 07:18 PM

Here you go and don't try to use that Republican tactic of attacking the sources because everything there is documented fact.



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

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/07/teapublican-reversals/

http://nelsnewday.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/republicans-flip-flop/


Flip-flopping was a major criticism of John Kerry when he ran for president in 2004. The Republicans have now mastered the art or reversing their positions on anything. Here are some of the policies that they supported until President Barack Obama thought they were good ideas:

1. Health Care Mandates: Newt Gingrich was a huge supporter of an individual health care insurance mandate. Republicans want people to take responsibility for themselves but not if it’s Obama’s idea.

2. The Nuclear START Treaty: Ronald Reagan, the conservative’s god, negotiated the very first START Treaty which was signed by yet another Republican, George H. W. Bush, in 1991. After that treaty expired in 2009, President Obama negotiated a new one to continue the Reagan legacy. Conservatives opposed Reagan’s treaty.

3. Dream Act: Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in the 1980s, and Republicans worked on immigration reform under the Bush II administration. George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both worked with Democrats, notably Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), for immigration. Obama has followed Reagan’s Dream, but Republicans refuse hear anything of it.

4. TARP: Republicans supported TARP when they helped pass it in response to the economic collapse in 2008. George W. Bush even signed the legislation into law. Republicans take credit for the stimulus checks that they give to state constituents, but lambast Obama for the idea that wasn’t even his.

5. Bail-out of Auto Industry: Republicans supported the idea but abandoned it once President Obama called for it. The auto industry is a “job creator,” but conservatives wanted the bail-out to fail because Obama supported it. Now Mitt Romney tries to take credit for the successful idea.

6. Israel Going Back to Pre-1967 Borders: Among other presidents, both Bushes suggested this, but Republicans denounced Obama for the idea.

7. Gun Control: Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Handgun Act, and Republicans have supported gun control measures. Today’s conservatives want war against liberals so they want guns in everyone’s hands in all places.

8. Public Education: The Founding Fathers believed in education for all, and every Republican president has supported the public education system. Ronald Reagan campaigned on axing the Department of Education but, once president, amped up its budget. When George W. Bush sought to improve public education, Republicans were on board. With Obama, Republicans have decided that all public schools are evil liberal institutions that must be destroyed.

9. Infrastructure Spending: Republicans used the power of the federal government to build the railroads in the 1860s and 1870s, the Panama Canal in the beginning of the twentieth century, and the interstate highway system in the 1950s. Republicans immediately opposed President Obama’s call for new infrastructure spending to improve crumbling roads and bridges and to improve rail lines.

10. Child Labor Laws: Republicans began championing child labor laws starting in 1852 and tried to pass a Constitutional amendment in 1924. After Democrats passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, child labor laws became federal law. Now Republicans want cheap labor for huge corporations which means killing child labor laws—and Obama’s policy.

11. Civil Rights: Republicans ended slavery and adopted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They splintered over the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but a Republican-led Supreme Court ruled against school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. President Obama has called for increased civil rights; Republicans oppose them for everyone except Christian white males.

12. Environmental Protection: Originally championed by Theodore Roosevelt, environmental protection has been supported by Republicans. They even supported the environment in the 1970s when Nixon created the EPA. Now Republicans support the oil and coal industry and want to open the entire American coastline and federally protected lands to drilling and mining. George H.W. Bush signed legislation in 1990 that implemented the cap-and-trade system, and many Republicans still support cap-and-trade. Now President Obama supports it; most Republicans oppose it.

13. Deficit Spending: Republicans employed deficit spending since the Reagan years and abused it during the W. Bush administration to pass their conservative agenda and fund wars. Reagan doubled the national debt, and George W. Bush doubled it again. Because Democrats controlled the White House and the Congress from 2008 to 2010, Republicans completely reversed their stance on deficit spending and oppose deficit spending solely on the grounds that a Republican isn’t President. If a Republican were president right now, they would abuse deficit spending once again to slam their destructive anti-middle class, anti-poor, anti-women, and anti-America agenda through Congress with no thought about fiscal responsibility whatsoever.

14. Federal Reserve: Now a target for most Republicans, it was a Republican idea, proposed by Republican leader Nelson Aldrich, to organize and regulate the banking system and to enforce monetary policy, thereby stabilizing the financial system. Obama needs the 1913 Federal Reserve Act to enforce Dodd-Frank which will make banks more responsible and accountable and will protect consumers. Conservatives don’t want to protect consumers.

15. Women’s Rights: The women’s rights movement was born in and grew with the Republican Party in the mid 1800s. Ronald Reagan legalized abortion as governor of California, and a moderate conservative Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Today’s Republican Party is now waging a war against women. The harder Democrats and President Obama fight for women’s rights, the harder Republicans fight to eliminate these rights because of orders from white Christian extremists.

16. End-of-Life Counseling: Republicans referred to this as “death panels” in 2009 in response to Obama’s Affordable Care Act, but they supported end-of-life counseling in their own 2003 Medicare bill. Both Bushes supported end-of-life counseling, and even Sarah Palin was for it until she was against it.

17. Financial Disclosure: Republicans were all for this transparency in 2002 when George W. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Act into law. Obama supports campaign finance laws so Republicans are now completely against financial disclosure. They and the activist Supreme Court have allied themselves with the corporate world over the nation’s people in their effort to steer elections their direction. To do that, campaign finance laws must not exist.

18. Minimum Wage: Eighty-two House Republicans and 39 Senate Republicans joined the Democratic majority in passing the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. George W. Bush signed the bill into law, and Republicans voted to raise it. Three times. Now that Obama stands with the workers, Republicans oppose the minimum wage on behalf of their corporate masters, most notably, Koch Industries.

19. Military Intervention in the Middle East: Reagan and both Bushes supported military intervention in the Middle East. Republicans became doves when Obama used the military to intervene in Libya although the dictator was overthrown without one lost U.S. life.

20. Abortion: As mentioned above, Reagan made abortion legal in California. Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s wife had an abortion to save her own life. Conservatives who support legal abortion are terrified to say so.

21. Economic Development Administration: This program provides grants to local projects which have created jobs. Republicans such as Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, and even John Cornyn have supported it in the past. Cornyn stated in March 2010 that funds from an EDA grant “would pave the way for the creation of new jobs and business opportunities, which will strengthen the region’s economy,” according to a local East Texas NBC news affiliate. Republicans are now calling for an end to the EDA.

22. Lower Taxes: Republican support lower taxes only for the wealthy. As they crusade to eliminate taxes on corporations and the wealthy, they support a proposal that would raise taxes for the bottom 90 percent. Once again they oppose Obama in wanting to lower taxes for the middle-class.

23. Medicare: Even Theodore Roosevelt supported national health care. Republicans originally opposed Medicare but then defended it after it became the law of the land. As president, Reagan saved Medicare. Obama wants Medicare, and it represents how popular government-run universal health care is in this country. Technically speaking, Republicans were against Medicare before they were for it before they were against it.

24. Social Security: Ronald Reagan and Milton Freidman supported the New Deal programs of the 1930s, and even Ayn Rand collected Social Security up to her dying breath. Ronald Reagan saved Social Security by raising payroll taxes which also saved Medicare because it is part of the Social Security Act. Republicans had control of Congress and the White House from 2001-2006: if they wanted to kill Social Security, they could have done so. But now, just as big bankers have proved that they are irresponsible, conservatives want to privatize. Did I mention that Obama supports Social Security?

Watching the Republicans try to destroy Obama at any cost to the country and hearing conservatives talk about their faith in the Founders of the United States, we can assume that Republicans were for this country before they were against it.




[Edited on 9/4/2014 by sixty8]


Muleman1994 - 9/4/2014 at 08:32 PM

quote:
quote:

So let's have some of those examples of the switching of positions. Here's one, Supporting the Iraq War and then turning against it later when the politics switched. Oh wait that wasn't a Republican. That was John Kerry and Joe Biden.



How about supporting affordable care when it was Romney's plan in Massachusetts, but being against it when it became Obamacare? Even Romney had to back away from it instead of embracing it and taking credit for it..... because the republicans had taken a position against it because it might make Obama look good....

________________________________________________

How about supporting affordable care when it was Romney's plan in Massachusetts, but being against it when it became Obamacare? Even Romney had to back away from it instead of embracing it and taking credit for it..... Because the republicans had taken a position against it because it might make Obama look good....
_________________________________________


Republicans do support affordable health care for all citizens.
Obamacare is not affordable health care and does not provide for all citizens who need coverage.

1.) Obama repeatedly said “if you like your plan you can keep your plan”. A flat out lie.
a. Obama didn’t tell the people you could keep you plan if you were willing to pay more for it and services would be subject to new government regulations that restrict services.
2.) Obama repeatedly said “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”. A flat out lie.
a. Obama didn’t mention that your Doctor will now have to comply with new government regulations and massive new reporting of private medical information to the government.
3.) Obama repeatedly said “the average family will save $2,500 a year in premiums. A flat out lie.
a. The average American family will have to pay much higher premiums and deductibles will double and triple.
4.) Obama didn’t mention that all Obamacare enrollees will have to pay for abortions.
5.) The Obama administration screwed up the roll out of the system whose website failed and it is now approaching 900 million in costs for a system that could have been easily done by the private sector for less than 10% of what has already been spent.
6.) The “Marketplace” system still does not work and the back end is so screwed up that no one knows if the premiums are even being paid.
7.) Several of the State systems have also failed costing the tax-payers hundreds of millions of dollars.
8.) Obama said “his” healthcare plan would cover the 30 million uninsured. Crap, not even close. He claims that 8 million people were signed up but doesn’t mention that fact that 4 million of those people were destined to join Medicare anyway because of their age.
9.) Obama said that his plan would also save Medicare over $500 millions dollars in it first year by cutting down on fraud. The Obama administration has “delayed” any prosecution of Medicare fraud.
10.) Obamacare does contain a death panel regardless of the lies liberals have said that it does not exist.
a. The death panel is known as the “Independent Payment Advisory Board” in Obamacare. There is nothing independent about it as all the members are to be appointed by politicians and are not required to be physicians.
b. The IPAB will decide which medical procedures and which medications are “too expensive” in their gov’t. bureaucrats mind and will be dis-allowed.
c. This death panel is so hated by both sides of Congress and the American people, the Obama administration, who by law was to fill this panel last January has decided to wait…
Sixty five percent of the American People in every major poll want Obamacare repealed and replaced.
And don’t even try the other liberal lie: The Republicans have no plan” crap. There are three replacement plans already but Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats will not allow them to be discussed.

One of my responsibilities at work is the organizations health care and benefits system and I have some very smart medical insurance administrators and lawyers working of this fiasco.
We have read the law the liberals didn’t bother to read and it is simply a government takeover of the health insurance system.
The government can’t ever crate a website.


[Edited on 9/4/2014 by Muleman1994]


Sang - 9/4/2014 at 09:52 PM

quote:


Republicans do support affordable health care for all citizens.
Obamacare is not affordable health care and does not provide for all citizens who need coverage.




Right - which is why all the republican governors said no to medicaid coverage and tried to make it so people wouldn't sign up for ACA in their states....... because they support affordable healthcare....... yeah, that's it............


2112 - 9/4/2014 at 10:18 PM

quote:
Things are not so simple. Without the incredibly robust growth that began in the Reagan years the budget NEVER would have been balanced. And Clinton didn't "build a surplus." He and a Republican Congress worked together to create a surplus budget. Do you realistically think that a left wing Democratic Congress would have agreed to the cuts necessary to bring about that surplus? The reason for the Reagan deficits is that while Congress approved his tax cuts (necessary to spur economic recovery) they refused to approve his proposed spending cuts. Despite what some believe Congress is not useless and in actuality passes all budgets and spending bills. Nothing happens without Congressional and presidential approval (as very few vetoes are overridden) In the end all laws are a compromise between Congress and the president. It is wrong to say Reagan caused the deficit and it is wrong to say Clinton brought about a surplus. Congress is part of both equations.


Wait, what?????? You didn't just give Reagan credit for a Clinton era balanced budget did you???? You do realize that, whether you hated Carter or not, the debt as a percentage of GDP decreased during his administration and was the lowest in the last century. Reagan launched the era of big government spending. He absolutely does not get any credit for the balancing of the budget. Feel free to give Reagan credit for lots of things, but balancing a budget can't be one of them.


Muleman1994 - 9/4/2014 at 10:35 PM

quote:
quote:


Republicans do support affordable health care for all citizens.
Obamacare is not affordable health care and does not provide for all citizens who need coverage.




Right - which is why all the republican governors said no to medicaid coverage and tried to make it so people wouldn't sign up for ACA in their states....... because they support affordable healthcare....... yeah, that's it............

___________________________________________

Nice try at sarcasim.

Republican Governors knew ObamaCare was a bad law and moved to protect their citizens from it.

Obamacare is such a piece of crap, Obama had to give waivers to two entire States (MO & LA) to buy their Democrat Congress members and give 112 waivers to unions and political supporters.

If you think Obamacare is any good, why did Obama have to repeated lie to try and sell it?


BoytonBrother - 9/4/2014 at 11:07 PM

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
I love when people on a music site who never majored in political science or held any job related to politics, believe they are qualified to accurately judge the qualifications and experience of politicians in Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


I see. So we should shut up and do as our betters tell us. That is your idea of Democracy? And I'm sure you will hold to that view when a person whose views you oppose is in the White House.


How in the hell do you get all that from my comment above? Amazing. People can support, oppose, agree, and disagree all they want, but it's asinine to think any of us here know whether a politician is qualified to do their job. We know a fraction of who they are. We know even less about what the higher-ups look for in a candidate. That's like one of us telling a heart surgeon he isn't qualified to perform an operation. Not everything is subjective.

[Edited on 9/4/2014 by BoytonBrother]


MartinD28 - 9/4/2014 at 11:12 PM

quote:
quote:


Republicans do support affordable health care for all citizens.
Obamacare is not affordable health care and does not provide for all citizens who need coverage.




Right - which is why all the republican governors said no to medicaid coverage and tried to make it so people wouldn't sign up for ACA in their states....... because they support affordable healthcare....... yeah, that's it............


So the tax money put in by those states ends up being diverted to other states. These states run by the GOP have chosen ideology over policy and helping out poor people with health care and which would probably create jobs as a byproduct. But this is the party that cares about people...well wealthy people anyway. You can sure as hell bet that those governors and legislators have nice health care packages paid for mostly by the states in which they reside and control gov't. decisions.


2112 - 9/4/2014 at 11:44 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:


Republicans do support affordable health care for all citizens.
Obamacare is not affordable health care and does not provide for all citizens who need coverage.




Right - which is why all the republican governors said no to medicaid coverage and tried to make it so people wouldn't sign up for ACA in their states....... because they support affordable healthcare....... yeah, that's it............


So the tax money put in by those states ends up being diverted to other states. These states run by the GOP have chosen ideology over policy and helping out poor people with health care and which would probably create jobs as a byproduct. But this is the party that cares about people...well wealthy people anyway. You can sure as hell bet that those governors and legislators have nice health care packages paid for mostly by the states in which they reside and control gov't. decisions.


Now you can see why the Republican led states are the poorest in the nation.

[Edited on 9/4/2014 by 2112]


Muleman1994 - 9/5/2014 at 12:42 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:


Republicans do support affordable health care for all citizens.
Obamacare is not affordable health care and does not provide for all citizens who need coverage.




Right - which is why all the republican governors said no to medicaid coverage and tried to make it so people wouldn't sign up for ACA in their states....... because they support affordable healthcare....... yeah, that's it............


So the tax money put in by those states ends up being diverted to other states. These states run by the GOP have chosen ideology over policy and helping out poor people with health care and which would probably create jobs as a byproduct. But this is the party that cares about people...well wealthy people anyway. You can sure as hell bet that those governors and legislators have nice health care packages paid for mostly by the states in which they reside and control gov't. decisions.


Now you can see why the Republican led states are the poorest in the nation.

[Edited on 9/4/2014 by 2112]

____________________________________________

The Republican States are the most efficient run States.

What facts are you using to claim "poorest"?


Sang - 9/5/2014 at 12:52 AM

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/29/facebook-pos ts/are-97-nations-100-poorest-counties-red-states

Poorest is usually defined by lowest income - a simple Google search will bring up plenty of sites.....


From the article above:

A meme circulating on Twitter and other social media recently caught our eye. Created by the liberal group Occupy Democrats, it said, "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states. But tell me again how Republican policies grow the economy?"

This was a variation on a few memes we’ve checked previously -- that nine out of the 10 poorest states are red states (we rated this Mostly True) and that Republican-leaning states get more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes (also Mostly True).

While the meme’s suggestion that "Republican policies" are causing poverty is too subjective a question to be fact-checked, we decided to take a closer look at the set-up to the claim -- that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states."

First, we’ll explain our methodology.

To determine the nation’s 100 poorest counties, we downloaded data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. This data covers five years ending in 2012, and includes more than 3,000 counties and county equivalents (such as Louisiana parishes). This data enabled us to rank-order these jurisdictions based on two commonly used measurements -- median income, and percentage of the population in poverty.

As for determining whether a state is "red" or "blue," we decided to define it by whether the state voted for President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney in 2012. This means we counted North Carolina and Indiana as red states, since Obama lost them in 2012 after winning them in 2008. (Though either way, the differences would have been marginal.)

So how did the data turn out?

For median income, we found that 95 of the 100 poorest counties were located in red states.

Here are the 10 poorest, all of them in red states:

1. Owsley County, Ky.

2. Jefferson County, Miss.

3. Wolfe County, Ky.

4. Brooks County, Texas

5. McCreary County, Ky.

6. Hudspeth County, Texas

7. Hancock County, Tenn.

8. Jackson County, Ky.

9. Clay County, Ky.

10. Holmes County, Miss.

For percentage of residents in poverty, we found that 93 of the 100 poorest counties were in red states.

Here are the 10 with the highest poverty rates, all of them in red states:

1. Shannon County, S.D.

2. Clay County, Ga.

3. East Carroll Parish, La.

4. Sioux County, N.D.

5. Todd County, S.D.

6. Hudspeth County, Texas

7. Holmes County, Miss.

8. Corson County, S.D.

9. Wolfe County, Ky.

10. Humphreys County, Miss.

So there are some differences between the most recent Census data and what the meme said, but they are pretty small. Numerically, we don’t have much to quibble with.

Our bigger question concerns whether it’s significant that a lot of poor counties are located in red states. There’s reason for at least a bit of skepticism.

For starters, the list is dominated by rural areas. Generally speaking, rural areas have a lower cost of living, so the small income you make in a poor, rural Texas county is going to go further than it would if you lived in a poor, urban area like Detroit or Camden, N.J. This raises questions about how comparatively disadvantaged poor Americans are in rural and urban areas.

Also, rural areas are areas where Republicans tend to do well electorally. By contrast, impoverished areas of big cities are big enough population-wise to be balanced by more affluent neighborhoods, and these poor urban areas are often (though not always) in blue states.

It’s also worth pointing out that many of the counties on the list are located in Appalachia, particularly in such states as Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi and Georgia. That’s a region that has suffered economically for generations -- long predating the time when Republicans took over from Democrats in most elected offices.

In Appalachia, "it’s clear there’s a regional problem, born of isolation, geographic and political; exploitation, of timber and coal; and poor education," said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky.

Finally, there’s an eccentricity that shaped both of the top-100 lists. Each is dominated by three states: Texas, Georgia and Kentucky. What ties together these three states? They have a lot of counties. In fact, these three states rank first, second and third on the list of states that have the most counties. Texas has 254, Georgia 159 and Kentucky 120.

This means that these three states have lots of rural, small-population counties, so they take up a disproportionate share of the spots on these lists. On each list, these three states collectively account for more than 40 percent of the counties listed.

Importantly, each of these three states are red states. If some of the bigger blue states had been sliced into as many counties as Texas, Georgia and Kentucky were, some of those blue-state counties might have been poor and rural, and that could have changed the complexion of the list. As it is, blue states tend to have smaller numbers of counties. New York has 62, California has 57, Washington state has 39, Oregon has 36, New Jersey has 21 and Massachusetts has just 14.

Our ruling

The meme said that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states." According to the most recent data, that’s a few percentage points high, but not by much.

However, measuring a county’s lack of affluence this way skews the map of poorest places toward rural states (which tend to be red) and away from big cities (which tend to be blue). This undercuts the simplicity of the meme’s political message.

The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.


alloak41 - 9/5/2014 at 01:07 AM

quote:
quote:
In other words you're saying that Democrat policies like Social Security, Medicare, Vietnam War, War on Poverty, ect haven't contributed to the debt.

With a straight face you're saying this?


Wasn't Vietnam over when Clinton built a surplus?

I think there was Social Security, Medicare, (War on Poverty - not winning), all in place when Bush took over a surplus.


I'll ask again. You're saying that Social Security and Medicare have no impact on the debt.

With a straight face you're saying this? Are you serious?


alloak41 - 9/5/2014 at 01:08 AM

quote:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/29/facebook-pos ts/are-97-nations-100-poorest-counties-red-states

Poorest is usually defined by lowest income - a simple Google search will bring up plenty of sites.....


From the article above:

A meme circulating on Twitter and other social media recently caught our eye. Created by the liberal group Occupy Democrats, it said, "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states. But tell me again how Republican policies grow the economy?"

This was a variation on a few memes we’ve checked previously -- that nine out of the 10 poorest states are red states (we rated this Mostly True) and that Republican-leaning states get more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes (also Mostly True).

While the meme’s suggestion that "Republican policies" are causing poverty is too subjective a question to be fact-checked, we decided to take a closer look at the set-up to the claim -- that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states."

First, we’ll explain our methodology.

To determine the nation’s 100 poorest counties, we downloaded data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. This data covers five years ending in 2012, and includes more than 3,000 counties and county equivalents (such as Louisiana parishes). This data enabled us to rank-order these jurisdictions based on two commonly used measurements -- median income, and percentage of the population in poverty.

As for determining whether a state is "red" or "blue," we decided to define it by whether the state voted for President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney in 2012. This means we counted North Carolina and Indiana as red states, since Obama lost them in 2012 after winning them in 2008. (Though either way, the differences would have been marginal.)

So how did the data turn out?

For median income, we found that 95 of the 100 poorest counties were located in red states.

Here are the 10 poorest, all of them in red states:

1. Owsley County, Ky.

2. Jefferson County, Miss.

3. Wolfe County, Ky.

4. Brooks County, Texas

5. McCreary County, Ky.

6. Hudspeth County, Texas

7. Hancock County, Tenn.

8. Jackson County, Ky.

9. Clay County, Ky.

10. Holmes County, Miss.

For percentage of residents in poverty, we found that 93 of the 100 poorest counties were in red states.

Here are the 10 with the highest poverty rates, all of them in red states:

1. Shannon County, S.D.

2. Clay County, Ga.

3. East Carroll Parish, La.

4. Sioux County, N.D.

5. Todd County, S.D.

6. Hudspeth County, Texas

7. Holmes County, Miss.

8. Corson County, S.D.

9. Wolfe County, Ky.

10. Humphreys County, Miss.

So there are some differences between the most recent Census data and what the meme said, but they are pretty small. Numerically, we don’t have much to quibble with.

Our bigger question concerns whether it’s significant that a lot of poor counties are located in red states. There’s reason for at least a bit of skepticism.

For starters, the list is dominated by rural areas. Generally speaking, rural areas have a lower cost of living, so the small income you make in a poor, rural Texas county is going to go further than it would if you lived in a poor, urban area like Detroit or Camden, N.J. This raises questions about how comparatively disadvantaged poor Americans are in rural and urban areas.

Also, rural areas are areas where Republicans tend to do well electorally. By contrast, impoverished areas of big cities are big enough population-wise to be balanced by more affluent neighborhoods, and these poor urban areas are often (though not always) in blue states.

It’s also worth pointing out that many of the counties on the list are located in Appalachia, particularly in such states as Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi and Georgia. That’s a region that has suffered economically for generations -- long predating the time when Republicans took over from Democrats in most elected offices.

In Appalachia, "it’s clear there’s a regional problem, born of isolation, geographic and political; exploitation, of timber and coal; and poor education," said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky.

Finally, there’s an eccentricity that shaped both of the top-100 lists. Each is dominated by three states: Texas, Georgia and Kentucky. What ties together these three states? They have a lot of counties. In fact, these three states rank first, second and third on the list of states that have the most counties. Texas has 254, Georgia 159 and Kentucky 120.

This means that these three states have lots of rural, small-population counties, so they take up a disproportionate share of the spots on these lists. On each list, these three states collectively account for more than 40 percent of the counties listed.

Importantly, each of these three states are red states. If some of the bigger blue states had been sliced into as many counties as Texas, Georgia and Kentucky were, some of those blue-state counties might have been poor and rural, and that could have changed the complexion of the list. As it is, blue states tend to have smaller numbers of counties. New York has 62, California has 57, Washington state has 39, Oregon has 36, New Jersey has 21 and Massachusetts has just 14.

Our ruling

The meme said that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states." According to the most recent data, that’s a few percentage points high, but not by much.

However, measuring a county’s lack of affluence this way skews the map of poorest places toward rural states (which tend to be red) and away from big cities (which tend to be blue). This undercuts the simplicity of the meme’s political message.

The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.




Great. What's your point?


2112 - 9/5/2014 at 01:08 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:


Republicans do support affordable health care for all citizens.
Obamacare is not affordable health care and does not provide for all citizens who need coverage.




Right - which is why all the republican governors said no to medicaid coverage and tried to make it so people wouldn't sign up for ACA in their states....... because they support affordable healthcare....... yeah, that's it............


So the tax money put in by those states ends up being diverted to other states. These states run by the GOP have chosen ideology over policy and helping out poor people with health care and which would probably create jobs as a byproduct. But this is the party that cares about people...well wealthy people anyway. You can sure as hell bet that those governors and legislators have nice health care packages paid for mostly by the states in which they reside and control gov't. decisions.


Now you can see why the Republican led states are the poorest in the nation.

[Edited on 9/4/2014 by 2112]

____________________________________________

The Republican States are the most efficient run States.

What facts are you using to claim "poorest"?



Lowest income and highest poverty rates. Look at my post on page 2. Sorry if we're moving too fast for you son, but I'm guesssing you just like to ignore facts from real data when it doesn't match up with your fantasy world.


Sang - 9/5/2014 at 01:20 AM

quote:
quote:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/29/facebook-pos ts/are-97-nations-100-poorest-counties-red-states

Poorest is usually defined by lowest income - a simple Google search will bring up plenty of sites.....


From the article above:

A meme circulating on Twitter and other social media recently caught our eye. Created by the liberal group Occupy Democrats, it said, "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states. But tell me again how Republican policies grow the economy?"

This was a variation on a few memes we’ve checked previously -- that nine out of the 10 poorest states are red states (we rated this Mostly True) and that Republican-leaning states get more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes (also Mostly True).

While the meme’s suggestion that "Republican policies" are causing poverty is too subjective a question to be fact-checked, we decided to take a closer look at the set-up to the claim -- that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states."

First, we’ll explain our methodology.

To determine the nation’s 100 poorest counties, we downloaded data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. This data covers five years ending in 2012, and includes more than 3,000 counties and county equivalents (such as Louisiana parishes). This data enabled us to rank-order these jurisdictions based on two commonly used measurements -- median income, and percentage of the population in poverty.

As for determining whether a state is "red" or "blue," we decided to define it by whether the state voted for President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney in 2012. This means we counted North Carolina and Indiana as red states, since Obama lost them in 2012 after winning them in 2008. (Though either way, the differences would have been marginal.)

So how did the data turn out?

For median income, we found that 95 of the 100 poorest counties were located in red states.

Here are the 10 poorest, all of them in red states:

1. Owsley County, Ky.

2. Jefferson County, Miss.

3. Wolfe County, Ky.

4. Brooks County, Texas

5. McCreary County, Ky.

6. Hudspeth County, Texas

7. Hancock County, Tenn.

8. Jackson County, Ky.

9. Clay County, Ky.

10. Holmes County, Miss.

For percentage of residents in poverty, we found that 93 of the 100 poorest counties were in red states.

Here are the 10 with the highest poverty rates, all of them in red states:

1. Shannon County, S.D.

2. Clay County, Ga.

3. East Carroll Parish, La.

4. Sioux County, N.D.

5. Todd County, S.D.

6. Hudspeth County, Texas

7. Holmes County, Miss.

8. Corson County, S.D.

9. Wolfe County, Ky.

10. Humphreys County, Miss.

So there are some differences between the most recent Census data and what the meme said, but they are pretty small. Numerically, we don’t have much to quibble with.

Our bigger question concerns whether it’s significant that a lot of poor counties are located in red states. There’s reason for at least a bit of skepticism.

For starters, the list is dominated by rural areas. Generally speaking, rural areas have a lower cost of living, so the small income you make in a poor, rural Texas county is going to go further than it would if you lived in a poor, urban area like Detroit or Camden, N.J. This raises questions about how comparatively disadvantaged poor Americans are in rural and urban areas.

Also, rural areas are areas where Republicans tend to do well electorally. By contrast, impoverished areas of big cities are big enough population-wise to be balanced by more affluent neighborhoods, and these poor urban areas are often (though not always) in blue states.

It’s also worth pointing out that many of the counties on the list are located in Appalachia, particularly in such states as Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi and Georgia. That’s a region that has suffered economically for generations -- long predating the time when Republicans took over from Democrats in most elected offices.

In Appalachia, "it’s clear there’s a regional problem, born of isolation, geographic and political; exploitation, of timber and coal; and poor education," said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky.

Finally, there’s an eccentricity that shaped both of the top-100 lists. Each is dominated by three states: Texas, Georgia and Kentucky. What ties together these three states? They have a lot of counties. In fact, these three states rank first, second and third on the list of states that have the most counties. Texas has 254, Georgia 159 and Kentucky 120.

This means that these three states have lots of rural, small-population counties, so they take up a disproportionate share of the spots on these lists. On each list, these three states collectively account for more than 40 percent of the counties listed.

Importantly, each of these three states are red states. If some of the bigger blue states had been sliced into as many counties as Texas, Georgia and Kentucky were, some of those blue-state counties might have been poor and rural, and that could have changed the complexion of the list. As it is, blue states tend to have smaller numbers of counties. New York has 62, California has 57, Washington state has 39, Oregon has 36, New Jersey has 21 and Massachusetts has just 14.

Our ruling

The meme said that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states." According to the most recent data, that’s a few percentage points high, but not by much.

However, measuring a county’s lack of affluence this way skews the map of poorest places toward rural states (which tend to be red) and away from big cities (which tend to be blue). This undercuts the simplicity of the meme’s political message.

The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.




Great. What's your point?



Just answering muleman's question with some facts - I know it's a new concept for you. It states that 9 of 10 poorest states are red (mostly true)- which is what he was disputing.... try to keep up...


alloak41 - 9/5/2014 at 01:22 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:


Republicans do support affordable health care for all citizens.
Obamacare is not affordable health care and does not provide for all citizens who need coverage.




Right - which is why all the republican governors said no to medicaid coverage and tried to make it so people wouldn't sign up for ACA in their states....... because they support affordable healthcare....... yeah, that's it............


So the tax money put in by those states ends up being diverted to other states. These states run by the GOP have chosen ideology over policy and helping out poor people with health care and which would probably create jobs as a byproduct. But this is the party that cares about people...well wealthy people anyway. You can sure as hell bet that those governors and legislators have nice health care packages paid for mostly by the states in which they reside and control gov't. decisions.


Now you can see why the Republican led states are the poorest in the nation.

[Edited on 9/4/2014 by 2112]

____________________________________________

The Republican States are the most efficient run States.

What facts are you using to claim "poorest"?



Lowest income and highest poverty rates. Look at my post on page 2. Sorry if we're moving too fast for you son, but I'm guesssing you just like to ignore facts from real data when it doesn't match up with your fantasy world.


Is there anything new here? Most of those areas have always been the poorest. (Except
during times they've voted for Democrats?) What is the point you are trying to make?


alloak41 - 9/5/2014 at 01:25 AM




Great. What's your point?



Just answering muleman's question with some facts - I know it's a new concept for you. It states that 9 of 10 poorest states are red (mostly true)- which is what he was disputing.... try to keep up...


Great, so what's the point? They've voted blue as well and were probably just as poor then.
Were these wealthy areas when they voted for a Carter or Clinton?


2112 - 9/5/2014 at 01:33 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:


Republicans do support affordable health care for all citizens.
Obamacare is not affordable health care and does not provide for all citizens who need coverage.




Right - which is why all the republican governors said no to medicaid coverage and tried to make it so people wouldn't sign up for ACA in their states....... because they support affordable healthcare....... yeah, that's it............


So the tax money put in by those states ends up being diverted to other states. These states run by the GOP have chosen ideology over policy and helping out poor people with health care and which would probably create jobs as a byproduct. But this is the party that cares about people...well wealthy people anyway. You can sure as hell bet that those governors and legislators have nice health care packages paid for mostly by the states in which they reside and control gov't. decisions.


Now you can see why the Republican led states are the poorest in the nation.

[Edited on 9/4/2014 by 2112]

____________________________________________

The Republican States are the most efficient run States.

What facts are you using to claim "poorest"?



Lowest income and highest poverty rates. Look at my post on page 2. Sorry if we're moving too fast for you son, but I'm guesssing you just like to ignore facts from real data when it doesn't match up with your fantasy world.


Is there anything new here? Most of those areas have always been the poorest. (Except
during times they've voted for Democrats?) What is the point you are trying to make?


Muleman was asking what facts were being used to claim "poorest." The answer is "poorest" means lowest income and greatest poverty. We are just answering Muleman's question. Apparently he must think "poorest" means something else. I have no idea why he finds the states with the greatest poverty, lowest incomes, highest crime, and worst education rankings to be the best run, but Muleman seems to be proud of it.


Sang - 9/5/2014 at 01:34 AM

Why don't you do your own research and post the results? You throw out statements and expect everyone else to dispute or back them up. Why don't you back them up with citations?


alloak41 - 9/5/2014 at 01:42 AM

quote:
quote:
Obama has done better with the economy than Bush.


He's done a great job with the DC economy. No question about that. If you live in
or around Washington you're probably laughing all the way to the bank. But whether
that's a healthy indicator for the rest of us in another matter.


Muleman1994 - 9/5/2014 at 02:25 AM

Asleep at the wheel again:

Thursday the Obama administration has admitted that the HealthCare.gov site has been hacked.

The gross incompetence of this administration continues.



Sang - 9/5/2014 at 02:32 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Obama has done better with the economy than Bush.


He's done a great job with the DC economy. No question about that. If you live in
or around Washington you're probably laughing all the way to the bank. But whether
that's a healthy indicator for the rest of us in another matter.



My 401k is doing great....... and I was able to retire early...... it's working for me.....


Sang - 9/5/2014 at 02:35 AM

HealthCare.gov Site Suffers Hack But No Data Stolen: Officials
The government's healthcare insurance information website, HealthCare.gov, was hacked this summer, but no damage was done, according to a statement Thursday from the Department of Health and Human Services. "Today, we briefed key Congressional staff about an intrusion on a test server that supports HealthCare.gov," the statement said. The breach was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. HHS said the attack took the form of malware that was installed on a test server and "designed to launch a 'denial of service' attack against other websites when activated." The breach was discovered in late August; the Journal said the hack took place in July.

"Our review indicates that the server did not contain consumer information; data was not transmitted outside the agency, and the website was not specifically targeted," the HHS statement continued. That means this was likely an automated attack that happened to find a vulnerable server, not a concerted effort to break in. Nevertheless, the HHS writes, "We have taken measures to further strengthen security."



http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/healthcare-gov-site-suffers-hack-no-da ta-stolen-officials-n196181


That damn Obama - he should be a better programmer......


BoytonBrother - 9/5/2014 at 03:14 AM

quote:
Just answering muleman's question with some facts - I know it's a new concept for you. It states that 9 of 10 poorest states are red (mostly true)- which is what he was disputing.... try to keep up...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Great, so what's the point? They've voted blue as well and were probably just as poor then.
Were these wealthy areas when they voted for a Carter or Clinton?


I have to say, I don't really understand the article's point either. If we are going to determine the quality of a state's economy based on the political party of their leader, wouldn't the measurement be determined by the party of the state's Governor, and not the state's electorate for the presidential election?


Muleman1994 - 9/5/2014 at 03:14 AM

quote:
HealthCare.gov Site Suffers Hack But No Data Stolen: Officials
The government's healthcare insurance information website, HealthCare.gov, was hacked this summer, but no damage was done, according to a statement Thursday from the Department of Health and Human Services. "Today, we briefed key Congressional staff about an intrusion on a test server that supports HealthCare.gov," the statement said. The breach was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. HHS said the attack took the form of malware that was installed on a test server and "designed to launch a 'denial of service' attack against other websites when activated." The breach was discovered in late August; the Journal said the hack took place in July.

"Our review indicates that the server did not contain consumer information; data was not transmitted outside the agency, and the website was not specifically targeted," the HHS statement continued. That means this was likely an automated attack that happened to find a vulnerable server, not a concerted effort to break in. Nevertheless, the HHS writes, "We have taken measures to further strengthen security."



http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/healthcare-gov-site-suffers-hack-no-da ta-stolen-officials-n196181


That damn Obama - he should be a better programmer......

_______________________________

Quoting NBC News?
Brian Williams and the crew are on the down-low with Obama.
Same "news" people that edited the George Zimmerman 911 audio to make his seem a racist.

No data stolen? How the hell would those idiots know?

Obama doesn't need to be a programmer. He need to learn some management skills.

Not to worry though. I'm sure the Obama administration will do an internal investigation...again.




[Edited on 9/5/2014 by Muleman1994]


Sang - 9/5/2014 at 03:48 AM

Yes, attack the source.... this sounds so familiar......


Bhawk - 9/5/2014 at 03:04 PM

The amount of fact-checking needed on alot of statements in this thread is staggering.


Muleman1994 - 9/5/2014 at 04:40 PM

quote:
Yes, attack the source.... this sounds so familiar......

________________________________________________________
Typical reaction from those who cannot argue the facts but feel a need to shout something.

NBC News ratings are circling the drain. David Gregory, their replacement for Tim Russert, has been canned due to poor ratings.
Brian Williams is a left-wing hack who has little to no support. Rumors say he'll be out after the mid-terms.
NBC only reports "news" that casts Obama in a positive light but the people know of all the scandals NBC simply doesn't report.



jkeller - 9/5/2014 at 05:05 PM

quote:
quote:
Yes, attack the source.... this sounds so familiar......

________________________________________________________
Typical reaction from those who cannot argue the facts but feel a need to shout something.

NBC News ratings are circling the drain. David Gregory, their replacement for Tim Russert, has been canned due to poor ratings.
Brian Williams is a left-wing hack who has little to no support. Rumors say he'll be out after the mid-terms.
NBC only reports "news" that casts Obama in a positive light but the people know of all the scandals NBC simply doesn't report.





You mean scandals like Benghazi? You have no facts to refute, so you attack the source. If you wish to actually have a debate on anything, you should at least do some research. You haven't got anything. We get that. Arguing with someone who cannot produce anything concrete in rebuttal is a waste of time. The irony is when you refer to others as "low info voters".


Gloucester-mass - 9/5/2014 at 05:54 PM

NBC is pathetic. The IRS Scandal and the Massive cover-up is so obvious but they refuse to cover it.
The IRS destroys Lois Lerner's blackberry AFTER the investigation starts yet that seems not news worthy to NBC . Eric Holder refuses to have a serious investigation , yet that is not news worthy. Emails from Lerner state that the congressional investigation is "Dangerous" yet that is not news worthy.

And remember Obama said "there is not a smidgen of corruption"

But none of this is news worthy


alloak41 - 9/5/2014 at 06:13 PM

quote:
NBC is pathetic. The IRS Scandal and the Massive cover-up is so obvious but they refuse to cover it.
The IRS destroys Lois Lerner's blackberry AFTER the investigation starts yet that seems not news worthy to NBC . Eric Holder refuses to have a serious investigation , yet that is not news worthy.



Hey, cut NBC some slack. They spent two whole minutes on the missing IRS emails.

Why should Holder worry about the IRS when he can stay busy with more important things, like launching a full investigation of a little police dept. in Podunk, Missouri?

I wonder how he would have treated the IRS had they been targeting black groups.


2112 - 9/5/2014 at 06:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Yes, attack the source.... this sounds so familiar......

________________________________________________________
Typical reaction from those who cannot argue the facts but feel a need to shout something.

NBC News ratings are circling the drain. David Gregory, their replacement for Tim Russert, has been canned due to poor ratings.
Brian Williams is a left-wing hack who has little to no support. Rumors say he'll be out after the mid-terms.
NBC only reports "news" that casts Obama in a positive light but the people know of all the scandals NBC simply doesn't report.



how about YOU backing up the ridiculous bullish!t that you post here?, that would be a nice start.


So funny that he talks about those you can't argue the facts, since every time someone presents him with the facts he completely ignores it. Also, every time somebody asks him a question, he completely ignores it. So much easier to make stuff up and to ignore anything to the contrary. He seems to live in a fantasy world where the word "facts' means his beliefs and opinions. I'm sure he'll ignore this post as well and change the subject to some other "fact" he heard in a "factual" right-wing blog somewhere.


alloak41 - 9/5/2014 at 06:25 PM

There is no need to cover up a "fake" scandal. Why would you be compelled to do so? All it does is make you look guilty for nothing. How stupid can you get?


Sang - 9/5/2014 at 06:32 PM

I believe the outcome of the numerous investigations was that there was no cover up....... so what do you mean?


BoytonBrother - 9/5/2014 at 06:36 PM

Wait, what??? There were scandals? No way! There you have it folks, the Obama administration is a failure b/c they have scandals. Name one other administration that had a scandal, I dare you.


alloak41 - 9/5/2014 at 06:46 PM

quote:
I believe the outcome of the numerous investigations was that there was no cover up..


On IRS targeting? No cover up?

Somebody deserves a Gomer Award.


Sang - 9/5/2014 at 07:17 PM

quote:
quote:
I believe the outcome of the numerous investigations was that there was no cover up..


On IRS targeting? No cover up?

Somebody deserves a Gomer Award.



I was responding to Benghazi - the other posts were not showing up...... sorry.........


MartinD28 - 9/5/2014 at 09:57 PM

quote:
quote:
I believe the outcome of the numerous investigations was that there was no cover up..


On IRS targeting? No cover up?

Somebody deserves a Gomer Award.


You can probably start the awards by giving one to Louie Gohmert, the wingnut US Rep. from Texas for all of his crazy IRS talk. I can just see the headline - "Gohmert edges out fellow Texan wacko Ted Cruz for Gomer Award"


Muleman1994 - 9/5/2014 at 10:31 PM

quote:
quote:
NBC is pathetic. The IRS Scandal and the Massive cover-up is so obvious but they refuse to cover it.
The IRS destroys Lois Lerner's blackberry AFTER the investigation starts yet that seems not news worthy to NBC . Eric Holder refuses to have a serious investigation , yet that is not news worthy. Emails from Lerner state that the congressional investigation is "Dangerous" yet that is not news worthy.

And remember Obama said "there is not a smidgen of corruption"

But none of this is news worthy

This too shall pass [like benghazi] what else ya got?

_________________________________________________________-

Yea, the use of the IRS to go after American Citizens because of their political beliefs is just fine with the liberals. Civil Rights are only for those who think their way.

The death of our Ambassador in Libya and three other Americans due to the gross incompetence of Hillary’s State Department is fine too along with Obama and Hillary standing next to the their caskets and lying to the American People about why they died doesn’t matter. Supporting Obama’s false claim the Al Qaeda is one the run while running for re-election is far more important than telling the truth.
There was no protest over some obscure video. It was a terrorist attack.

Liberals have no problem with the Obama administration running guns to Mexican drug cartels is fine. The use of those weapons to kill an American border patrol agent doesn’t matter to liberals nor is Holder’s lying under oath twice about it.

Changing U.S. Law by signing his name is not an issue to liberals. Of course The Supreme Court has unanimously decided 12 times that Obama broke the law by doing so really should be spoken about.

This has been the legacy of the Obama administration who soon will adopt a new slogan:

“You will know us by the trail of our dead”.


jkeller - 9/5/2014 at 10:53 PM

quote:


Yea, the use of the IRS to go after American Citizens because of their political beliefs is just fine with the liberals. Civil Rights are only for those who think their way.


The IRS targeted both left and right wing "non-profits".

quote:
The death of our Ambassador in Libya and three other Americans due to the gross incompetence of Hillary’s State Department is fine too along with Obama and Hillary standing next to the their caskets and lying to the American People about why they died doesn’t matter. Supporting Obama’s false claim the Al Qaeda is one the run while running for re-election is far more important than telling the truth.
There was no protest over some obscure video. It was a terrorist attack.


Clinton was absolved of any blame or cover up by a Congressional investigation that was headed by Republicans

quote:
Liberals have no problem with the Obama administration running guns to Mexican drug cartels is fine. The use of those weapons to kill an American border patrol agent doesn’t matter to liberals nor is Holder’s lying under oath twice about it.
That is absurd. Citation? I thought not.

quote:
Changing U.S. Law by signing his name is not an issue to liberals. Of course The Supreme Court has unanimously decided 12 times that Obama broke the law by doing so really should be spoken about.


Please give us a list of those 12 times they said that. A list with some links would help give you credibility. No? I thought not.

quote:
This has been the legacy of the Obama administration who soon will adopt a new slogan:

“You will know us by the trail of our dead”.


Sure.


Muleman1994 - 9/5/2014 at 11:48 PM

quote:
quote:


Yea, the use of the IRS to go after American Citizens because of their political beliefs is just fine with the liberals. Civil Rights are only for those who think their way.


The IRS targeted both left and right wing "non-profits".

quote:
The death of our Ambassador in Libya and three other Americans due to the gross incompetence of Hillary’s State Department is fine too along with Obama and Hillary standing next to the their caskets and lying to the American People about why they died doesn’t matter. Supporting Obama’s false claim the Al Qaeda is one the run while running for re-election is far more important than telling the truth.
There was no protest over some obscure video. It was a terrorist attack.


Clinton was absolved of any blame or cover up by a Congressional investigation that was headed by Republicans

quote:
Liberals have no problem with the Obama administration running guns to Mexican drug cartels is fine. The use of those weapons to kill an American border patrol agent doesn’t matter to liberals nor is Holder’s lying under oath twice about it.
That is absurd. Citation? I thought not.

quote:
Changing U.S. Law by signing his name is not an issue to liberals. Of course The Supreme Court has unanimously decided 12 times that Obama broke the law by doing so really should be spoken about.


Please give us a list of those 12 times they said that. A list with some links would help give you credibility. No? I thought not.

quote:
This has been the legacy of the Obama administration who soon will adopt a new slogan:

“You will know us by the trail of our dead”.


Sure.


____________________________________________________

quote:
________________________________________


Yea, the use of the IRS to go after American Citizens because of their political beliefs is just fine with the liberals. Civil Rights are only for those who think their way.
________________________________________


The IRS targeted both left and right wing "non-profits".
The IRS targeted 117 conservative groups and delayed and consideration of their non-profit status until after the election.
The IRS targeted 9 liberal groups and approved 8 of their applications within a few weeks of receipt and long before the elction.

quote:
________________________________________
The death of our Ambassador in Libya and three other Americans due to the gross incompetence of Hillary’s State Department is fine too along with Obama and Hillary standing next to the their caskets and lying to the American People about why they died doesn’t matter. Supporting Obama’s false claim the Al Qaeda is one the run while running for re-election is far more important than telling the truth.
There was no protest over some obscure video. It was a terrorist attack.
________________________________________


Clinton was absolved of any blame or cover up by a Congressional investigation that was headed by Republicans
_____________________________-
Not true.
Hillary was found to be not at fault by The IAB, a completely internal State Department board staff by all Obama administration hand-picked “officials”.
The IAB never interviewed Hillary or anyone who was actually on the ground in Libya.
quote:
________________________________________
Liberals have no problem with the Obama administration running guns to Mexican drug cartels is fine. The use of those weapons to kill an American border patrol agent doesn’t matter to liberals nor is Holder’s lying under oath twice about it.
________________________________________
That is absurd. Citation? I thought not.
Fact. Read the transcript of the Obama administration officials and Holders own testimony.
quote:
________________________________________
Changing U.S. Law by signing his name is not an issue to liberals. Of course The Supreme Court has unanimously decided 12 times that Obama broke the law by doing so really should be spoken about.
________________________________________


Please give us a list of those 12 times they said that. A list with some links would help give you credibility. No? I thought not.
All 12 rulings are well documented and publically available on the Supreme Courts web-site
I assume you can read.
quote:
________________________________________
This has been the legacy of the Obama administration who soon will adopt a new slogan:

“You will know us by the trail of our dead”.
________________________________________

________________________________________
Sure.
A human life means nothing to a liberal. Ask the hundreds of thousands of babies who have been murdered.
Or you could ask Tyrone Woods,. Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Christopher Stevens, the Americans left to die in Libya by Obama and Hillary.
You could ask Brian Terry, The U.S. Border patrol agent killed by a Mexican drug cartel member with the gun supplied to him by Holder.




jkeller - 9/6/2014 at 12:00 AM

In other words, Muleman, you want everyone else to do your research for you. You cannot produce anything concrete to back yourself up.


Muleman1994 - 9/6/2014 at 12:20 AM

quote:
In other words, Muleman, you want everyone else to do your research for you. You cannot produce anything concrete to back yourself up.


___________

Hardly son.
I have done my research and am aware of the facts.

I have not the time or inclination to do research for people either too lazy or too stupid to do their own.


jkeller - 9/6/2014 at 12:35 AM

quote:


I have not the time or inclination to do research for people either too lazy or too stupid to do their own.





Of course, personal attacks are OK when they come from you. Everyone has to do your research for you because you won't. You have no desire to have an intelligent debate. You just throw out your opinion as fact and tell us to prove you wrong. When we do, you attack the source rather that debate the message. Talking to you is a waste of time as you have no desire to learn a thing from anyone or have a legitimate debate.


2112 - 9/6/2014 at 01:16 AM

quote:
quote:
In other words, Muleman, you want everyone else to do your research for you. You cannot produce anything concrete to back yourself up.


___________

Hardly son.
I have done my research and am aware of the facts.

I have not the time or inclination to do research for people either too lazy or too stupid to do their own.




Doing research only on right-wing blogs is not considered research, and certainly isn't a fair representation of the "facts." You clearly like to state your opinion as "facts" without anything to back that up, and yet you expect others to somehow accept your opinion and your version of "facts" as truth without anything to back it up. Maybe the people in your circle (the teaching to the choir types) might buy into your BS, but if you actually want a thinking person to believe you, then maybe backing up your statements might go a long way. Or maybe answering a question when challenged would go a long way toward any credibility. Most of the other conservatives (and liberals) here will at least back up what they say with some evidence. Whether I agree with them or not, it at least makes me think, and occasionally it opens my mind to something. But throwing out partisan BS and expecting someone to believe you and change their mind about something does nothing but make you look like you put no thought into anything you say. And I'm still trying after all these pages to hear your opinion on why Republican lead states are better run, preferably with some kind of evidence to back it up. I'm waiting. Or should we just take your opinion that Republican run states are better and nobody should ask questions as to why?


Muleman1994 - 9/6/2014 at 02:29 AM

quote:
quote:


I have not the time or inclination to do research for people either too lazy or too stupid to do their own.





Of course, personal attacks are OK when they come from you. Everyone has to do your research for you because you won't. You have no desire to have an intelligent debate. You just throw out your opinion as fact and tell us to prove you wrong. When we do, you attack the source rather that debate the message. Talking to you is a waste of time as you have no desire to learn a thing from anyone or have a legitimate debate.


___________________

Are you really that un-informed that you have to ask someone else to do basic research for you?

And you wonder where the phrase "low-information voter" comes from. Look in a mirror.

Still not one liberal here has presented and justification for Obama's failed policies.


Muleman1994 - 9/6/2014 at 02:30 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
In other words, Muleman, you want everyone else to do your research for you. You cannot produce anything concrete to back yourself up.


___________

Hardly son.
I have done my research and am aware of the facts.

I have not the time or inclination to do research for people either too lazy or too stupid to do their own.




Doing research only on right-wing blogs is not considered research, and certainly isn't a fair representation of the "facts." You clearly like to state your opinion as "facts" without anything to back that up, and yet you expect others to somehow accept your opinion and your version of "facts" as truth without anything to back it up. Maybe the people in your circle (the teaching to the choir types) might buy into your BS, but if you actually want a thinking person to believe you, then maybe backing up your statements might go a long way. Or maybe answering a question when challenged would go a long way toward any credibility. Most of the other conservatives (and liberals) here will at least back up what they say with some evidence. Whether I agree with them or not, it at least makes me think, and occasionally it opens my mind to something. But throwing out partisan BS and expecting someone to believe you and change their mind about something does nothing but make you look like you put no thought into anything you say. And I'm still trying after all these pages to hear your opinion on why Republican lead states are better run, preferably with some kind of evidence to back it up. I'm waiting. Or should we just take your opinion that Republican run states are better and nobody should ask questions as to why?

_______________________

Believe what ever you wish.

And you wonder where the phrase "low-information voter" comes from. Look in a mirror.

Still not one liberal here has presented and justification for Obama's failed policies.


Muleman1994 - 9/6/2014 at 02:32 AM

quote:
muleboy does his research by watching fox news, and Facebook rightwing news feeds.

_____________________________

You do Facebook?

No surprize there.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.


2112 - 9/6/2014 at 02:49 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
In other words, Muleman, you want everyone else to do your research for you. You cannot produce anything concrete to back yourself up.


___________

Hardly son.
I have done my research and am aware of the facts.

I have not the time or inclination to do research for people either too lazy or too stupid to do their own.




Doing research only on right-wing blogs is not considered research, and certainly isn't a fair representation of the "facts." You clearly like to state your opinion as "facts" without anything to back that up, and yet you expect others to somehow accept your opinion and your version of "facts" as truth without anything to back it up. Maybe the people in your circle (the teaching to the choir types) might buy into your BS, but if you actually want a thinking person to believe you, then maybe backing up your statements might go a long way. Or maybe answering a question when challenged would go a long way toward any credibility. Most of the other conservatives (and liberals) here will at least back up what they say with some evidence. Whether I agree with them or not, it at least makes me think, and occasionally it opens my mind to something. But throwing out partisan BS and expecting someone to believe you and change their mind about something does nothing but make you look like you put no thought into anything you say. And I'm still trying after all these pages to hear your opinion on why Republican lead states are better run, preferably with some kind of evidence to back it up. I'm waiting. Or should we just take your opinion that Republican run states are better and nobody should ask questions as to why?

_______________________

Believe what ever you wish.

And you wonder where the phrase "low-information voter" comes from. Look in a mirror.

Still not one liberal here has presented and justification for Obama's failed policies.



I would consider a low-information voter someone who thinks that Operation Fast and the Furious is a huge Obama scandal without understanding that that operation started 2 years before Obama took office.


alloak41 - 9/6/2014 at 04:38 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
In other words, Muleman, you want everyone else to do your research for you. You cannot produce anything concrete to back yourself up.


___________

Hardly son.
I have done my research and am aware of the facts.

I have not the time or inclination to do research for people either too lazy or too stupid to do their own.




Doing research only on right-wing blogs is not considered research, and certainly isn't a fair representation of the "facts." You clearly like to state your opinion as "facts" without anything to back that up, and yet you expect others to somehow accept your opinion and your version of "facts" as truth without anything to back it up. Maybe the people in your circle (the teaching to the choir types) might buy into your BS, but if you actually want a thinking person to believe you, then maybe backing up your statements might go a long way. Or maybe answering a question when challenged would go a long way toward any credibility. Most of the other conservatives (and liberals) here will at least back up what they say with some evidence. Whether I agree with them or not, it at least makes me think, and occasionally it opens my mind to something. But throwing out partisan BS and expecting someone to believe you and change their mind about something does nothing but make you look like you put no thought into anything you say. And I'm still trying after all these pages to hear your opinion on why Republican lead states are better run, preferably with some kind of evidence to back it up. I'm waiting. Or should we just take your opinion that Republican run states are better and nobody should ask questions as to why?

_______________________

Believe what ever you wish.

And you wonder where the phrase "low-information voter" comes from. Look in a mirror.

Still not one liberal here has presented and justification for Obama's failed policies.



I would consider a low-information voter someone who thinks that Operation Fast and the Furious is a huge Obama scandal without understanding that that operation started 2 years before Obama took office.


False. I wouldn't call you a low-info voter, but like many Liberals still holding onto myths surrounding the Bush Administration...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/sep/24/barack-obama/barac k-obama-said-fast-and-furious-began-under-bus/


2112 - 9/6/2014 at 05:21 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
In other words, Muleman, you want everyone else to do your research for you. You cannot produce anything concrete to back yourself up.


___________

Hardly son.
I have done my research and am aware of the facts.

I have not the time or inclination to do research for people either too lazy or too stupid to do their own.




Doing research only on right-wing blogs is not considered research, and certainly isn't a fair representation of the "facts." You clearly like to state your opinion as "facts" without anything to back that up, and yet you expect others to somehow accept your opinion and your version of "facts" as truth without anything to back it up. Maybe the people in your circle (the teaching to the choir types) might buy into your BS, but if you actually want a thinking person to believe you, then maybe backing up your statements might go a long way. Or maybe answering a question when challenged would go a long way toward any credibility. Most of the other conservatives (and liberals) here will at least back up what they say with some evidence. Whether I agree with them or not, it at least makes me think, and occasionally it opens my mind to something. But throwing out partisan BS and expecting someone to believe you and change their mind about something does nothing but make you look like you put no thought into anything you say. And I'm still trying after all these pages to hear your opinion on why Republican lead states are better run, preferably with some kind of evidence to back it up. I'm waiting. Or should we just take your opinion that Republican run states are better and nobody should ask questions as to why?

_______________________

Believe what ever you wish.

And you wonder where the phrase "low-information voter" comes from. Look in a mirror.

Still not one liberal here has presented and justification for Obama's failed policies.



I would consider a low-information voter someone who thinks that Operation Fast and the Furious is a huge Obama scandal without understanding that that operation started 2 years before Obama took office.


False. I wouldn't call you a low-info voter, but like many Liberals still holding onto myths surrounding the Bush Administration...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/sep/24/barack-obama/barac k-obama-said-fast-and-furious-began-under-bus/


Fair enough. I stand corrected. I should have said that a nearly identical program started during the Bush administration. For the record, I think it was a dumb idea regardless of who was doing it. I seriously doubt either president had any input into it at all. But, I think there is a ton of false outrage here. If the same thing would have happened when Bush was in office, and you know it very well could have, this would have made the news for a day or two and that would have been it. But the fact that this is brought up years later, while we see no outrage from the right at all about Reagan selling Iraq the very same chemical weapons that the US used to justify going to war with them 15 years later is just a slight bit hypocritical.


2112 - 9/6/2014 at 05:34 AM

Oh, and Muleman - you might make note of what alloak did there. He posted evidence to back up a point. That is how you are suppose to make a point and have people take you seriously around here. He didn't just say I've researched it but I'm too busy to post evidence to back up what I say. Alloak and I disagree in a lot of things, but at least he backs up his arguements and provides you with something to think about.


BillyBlastoff - 9/6/2014 at 06:35 AM

Hey Alloak - Why do you think the Washington DC area is doing economically well while the rest of the country suffers?


alloak41 - 9/6/2014 at 02:24 PM

quote:
Hey Alloak - Why do you think the Washington DC area is doing economically well while the rest of the country suffers?


Because government is about the only growth industry we have left. (with the possible exception of firearms and porn)


BoytonBrother - 9/6/2014 at 03:30 PM

Ironically, I bet the conservatives here are the ones that wish Muleman would go away the most. He's the Cliven Bundy of Hitten The Note.


BillyBlastoff - 9/6/2014 at 03:50 PM

So Alloak - Since government is the backbone of a good economy, don't you think the Republican Congress should pass an all encompassing infrastructure bill that puts people back to work re-building our country?

Shouldn't they build a desalination plant in California? Heck we funded Israel's desalination plant, built a major hydro electric dam in Iraq, completely re-built Bhagdad's infrastructure...

Private industry isn't going to do anything for the country's infrastructure. Isn't it time the Republicans did something more than upstruct?


Sang - 9/6/2014 at 04:16 PM

Here is another article on the southern red states that has a little more to it.... it's long, but interesting.... sorry that the topics change so much in this thread.... :-)

8 Disturbing trends that reveal the South's battered pysche

Across red-state America, especially in the Deep South, recent statistics—such as these Huffington Post graphics—show that the cycle of poverty, in its many manifestations, is unchanged and holding firm. Why is this?

(Editor’s note: This piece has been updated to credit some underlying source material published in the Huffington Post by Business Editor Emily Cohn.)
It’s easy to say this is how Republicans like to run states—cutting budgets, not raising the minimum wage, opposing labor unions. They let the poor and working class stew in their hardscrabble juices. Meanwhile, they distract voters by accusing liberals of waging war on the few sources of personal power in Southerners’ difficult lives: their religious beliefs and owning guns. But go back several decades when segregationist Democrats ruled; for the most part, they weren’t very different from today’s Republicans.

So what is it that perpetuates decades of poverty in the Deep South? What follows are eight bundles of statistics tracking this latest cycle of poverty. Could it be that people who historically have been treated badly, who have little money in their pockets but look to the sky and pray, expect less from others—including the public and private sector? Does that explain why red-staters cling to God, gun ownership and a “leave-me-alone” ferocity? They expect politicians to defend their values and their pride and little more?

What’s going on here isn’t entirely political, even if it is used by red-state Republicans in their personal drive for power and influence. Look at what the following statistics reveal about red-staters trapped in deep cycles of poverty. What is the thread that connects lousy governance, bad health, evangelical religion and firearms fervor?

1. Southern states have the most poor people.

Looking through the widest lense, one sees that America’s sunbelt contains the poorest states. This is not just because it costs less to live in a warmer climate. The Department of Agriculture, which measures poverty, found that every red state in a 2,500-mile stretch from Arizona to South Carolina along the southern tier had the highest poverty rates in the U.S. in 2011, between 17.9 and 22.8 percent.



From west to east, that poverty belt includes Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia and South Carolina. As many as one in four Southern children live in poverty, the Children’s Defense Fund reported earlier this year, compared to the national average of one in five.

As you would expect, the vast majority of people falling under the poverty line in the poorest states do not have white faces—although there are poor whites. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation compiles state poverty rates by race. In the poorest states, whites account for 15 percent to 20 percent of the poor.

2. Deep South states have no minimum wage.

People work hard, but that doesn’t mean they’re well paid—Southern business elites and politicians like it that way. Five states have no state minimum wage, meaning that the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour and $2.13 for tipped workers is the standard. While other states have raised these floors, that’s not so for Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina. These states also are hostile to organized labor, like the entire South. The result is the 10 states with the lowest average household incomes are mostly southern. Starting at rock bottom, they are Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

3. Deep South has lowest economic mobility.

Politicans love to talk about the American Dream, which of course, is that hard work will result in a steady climb up the economic ladder. That promise is least likely across the South, according to the Equality of Economic Opportunity Project. It mapped economic mobility county by county across the U.S., and created this map showing that the South was where children born into poor homes were least likely to climb the economic ladder. The region’s businesses and business models overwhelmingly rely on low-wage work.

4. South has lowest per capita spending by state government.

Given these private-sector proclivities, one might expect state and local governments to pick up the slack. While that may be true for education spending compared to other issue areas, at least as measured by high school graduation rates, the states that spend the least for their residents are mostly red states in the South and mountain west.

According to the Kaiser Foundation, per capita expenditures by states in 2011 averaged $5,385. At the very bottom were Nevada ($3,150), Florida ($3,482), Missouri ($3,858), Texas ($3,796), Georgia ($4,176), Idaho ($4,212), Alabama ($4,398), Tennessee ($4,743), and South Carolina ($4,797). Three Deep South states—Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana—spend more than the national average, as did West Virginia.

5. Forget about decent preventative healthcare.

When it comes to helping low-income households get access to healthcare, almost all red states, including most of the Deep South, have refused to do this under Obamacare. The U.S. Supreme Court gave states the option to open enrollment into state-run Medicaid programs for the uninsured. Red-state Republicans have declined, although federal funds pay for more than 90 percent of this, with the feds paying the entire bill for the first few years. The Urban Institute mapped counties with the most uninsured people locked out of Obamacare. The result looks like a tornado track that starts in Oklahoma and Texas and goes into Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and North Carolina.

6. One result: people self-medicate in response.

Human nature is human nature, regardless of geography. People will find ways to cope with life’s challenges. But public health statistics show the personal response in the poorest states produces some bad results. The Deep South has the country’s highest obesity rates, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The region has the most cigarette smokers. It has the highest teen birth rates. Now, other areas of the country take the trophy for other vices. But according to Gallup, the pollsters, the states with the most unhappy people are in that Deep South-Midwest swath: Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.

7. Forget the lottery, just pray to Jesus.

Unlike Brandy Clarke’s new song, “Pray to Jesus, Play the Lotto,” Southerners do not spend the most on lottery tickets. Massachusetts takes that honor. But the South (and Utah) has the most evangelical Christians. In Alabama, the third most Christian state (56 percent of residents) and the second most religious state, according to the Pew Research Center, Republicans recently proposed a state constitutional amendment to put the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Rep. DuWayne Bridges said school shootings and violent crime was “due to the Ten Commandments not being displayed.”

Whether politicians like Bridges believe that nonsense is not the point. He is promoting that pious view because he knows most Alabamans are likely to have more faith in God than in man, because they are very religious. That is a consequence of poverty. When people are poor and struggling and they can’t do too much about it, they seek escapes—overeating, smoking, doing drugs. Some look for answers in religion. People hold onto what they can control, such as their beliefs.

It’s no surprise that the poorest states are the most religious. Pew ranked the importance of religion, and found the 10 most religious states were, in descending order, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia and Kentucky. But there other ways people who are battered by society try to feel personally powerful, which brings us to firearms.

8. And hold onto that gun!

The poorest states, which are the most religious, also have the most gun violence. That’s a sad consequence of a widespread gun-owning culture that goes beyond rural traditions of hunting. Southerners don’t trust government because Republicans tell them not to, allowing the GOP to do little to help people live better. Democrats who ruled the South during segregation drove the same point home. So it’s no surprise that the poorest states have some of the highest gun ownership rates and highest rates of gun-related violence.

The 10 states with the most gun violence, based on federal statistics, are, in descending order, Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas and Georgia. People who don’t have much power in the world know that guns are powerful. Like their religious beliefs, guns steel people against a hard life. Unfortunately, when people emotionally snap and grab a gun, the result can be deadly.

Breaking the Cycle?

It’s not that difficult to understand the dynamics of voters in the poorest states electing Republicans who share their religious values and love of guns—but who won’t do much else to rebalance their state economies. Old habits are hard to break. If you are used to being treated poorly, that expectation can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If red-state voters demanded more from their politicians, their employers and the institutions that perpetuate poverty, the status quo would begin to unwind and start to shift. Until then, reams of statistics will keep finding that America’s poorest regions are the same red states, run by white Republicans, and filled with people who have the blues.


http://www.salon.com/2014/03/12/8_disturbing_trends_that_reveal_the_souths_ battered_psyche_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow


alloak41 - 9/7/2014 at 12:52 AM

quote:
So Alloak - Since government is the backbone of a good economy, don't you think the Republican Congress should pass an all encompassing infrastructure bill that puts people back to work re-building our country?

Shouldn't they build a desalination plant in California? Heck we funded Israel's desalination plant, built a major hydro electric dam in Iraq, completely re-built Bhagdad's infrastructure...

Private industry isn't going to do anything for the country's infrastructure. Isn't it time the Republicans did something more than upstruct?


As I recall, the infrastructure parts of the Stimulus were supported by many Republicans. Problem is, not much work got done.

Aside from that, yes, if I was serving in the House I would push for an infrastructure bill as long as the only focus was to upgrade the infrastructure and nothing else. No politics involved. No greasing unions, no rewarding this group or that group or any of the other normal shenanigans.


mainebigdog - 9/7/2014 at 04:46 AM

quote:
So Alloak - Since government is the backbone of a good economy, don't you think the Republican Congress should pass an all encompassing infrastructure bill that puts people back to work re-building our country?

Shouldn't they build a desalination plant in California? Heck we funded Israel's desalination plant, built a major hydro electric dam in Iraq, completely re-built Bhagdad's infrastructure...

Private industry isn't going to do anything for the country's infrastructure. Isn't it time the Republicans did something more than upstruct?


what do you call the 800 billion dollars of stimulus? the next time some progressive says the house won't pass an infrastructure bill have them read this. no. it's not long term but the way dc acts what do you expect?

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=bill/hr-5021-the-high way-and-transportation-funding-act-of-2014


alloak41 - 9/7/2014 at 02:48 PM

quote:
Here is another article on the southern red states that has a little more to it.... it's long, but interesting.... sorry that the topics change so much in this thread.... :-)

8 Disturbing trends that reveal the South's battered pysche

Across red-state America, especially in the Deep South, recent statistics—such as these Huffington Post graphics—show that the cycle of poverty, in its many manifestations, is unchanged and holding firm. Why is this?

(Editor’s note: This piece has been updated to credit some underlying source material published in the Huffington Post by Business Editor Emily Cohn.)
It’s easy to say this is how Republicans like to run states—cutting budgets, not raising the minimum wage, opposing labor unions. They let the poor and working class stew in their hardscrabble juices. Meanwhile, they distract voters by accusing liberals of waging war on the few sources of personal power in Southerners’ difficult lives: their religious beliefs and owning guns. But go back several decades when segregationist Democrats ruled; for the most part, they weren’t very different from today’s Republicans.

So what is it that perpetuates decades of poverty in the Deep South? What follows are eight bundles of statistics tracking this latest cycle of poverty. Could it be that people who historically have been treated badly, who have little money in their pockets but look to the sky and pray, expect less from others—including the public and private sector? Does that explain why red-staters cling to God, gun ownership and a “leave-me-alone” ferocity? They expect politicians to defend their values and their pride and little more?

What’s going on here isn’t entirely political, even if it is used by red-state Republicans in their personal drive for power and influence. Look at what the following statistics reveal about red-staters trapped in deep cycles of poverty. What is the thread that connects lousy governance, bad health, evangelical religion and firearms fervor?

1. Southern states have the most poor people.

Looking through the widest lense, one sees that America’s sunbelt contains the poorest states. This is not just because it costs less to live in a warmer climate. The Department of Agriculture, which measures poverty, found that every red state in a 2,500-mile stretch from Arizona to South Carolina along the southern tier had the highest poverty rates in the U.S. in 2011, between 17.9 and 22.8 percent.



From west to east, that poverty belt includes Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia and South Carolina. As many as one in four Southern children live in poverty, the Children’s Defense Fund reported earlier this year, compared to the national average of one in five.

As you would expect, the vast majority of people falling under the poverty line in the poorest states do not have white faces—although there are poor whites. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation compiles state poverty rates by race. In the poorest states, whites account for 15 percent to 20 percent of the poor.

2. Deep South states have no minimum wage.

People work hard, but that doesn’t mean they’re well paid—Southern business elites and politicians like it that way. Five states have no state minimum wage, meaning that the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour and $2.13 for tipped workers is the standard. While other states have raised these floors, that’s not so for Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina. These states also are hostile to organized labor, like the entire South. The result is the 10 states with the lowest average household incomes are mostly southern. Starting at rock bottom, they are Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

3. Deep South has lowest economic mobility.

Politicans love to talk about the American Dream, which of course, is that hard work will result in a steady climb up the economic ladder. That promise is least likely across the South, according to the Equality of Economic Opportunity Project. It mapped economic mobility county by county across the U.S., and created this map showing that the South was where children born into poor homes were least likely to climb the economic ladder. The region’s businesses and business models overwhelmingly rely on low-wage work.

4. South has lowest per capita spending by state government.

Given these private-sector proclivities, one might expect state and local governments to pick up the slack. While that may be true for education spending compared to other issue areas, at least as measured by high school graduation rates, the states that spend the least for their residents are mostly red states in the South and mountain west.

According to the Kaiser Foundation, per capita expenditures by states in 2011 averaged $5,385. At the very bottom were Nevada ($3,150), Florida ($3,482), Missouri ($3,858), Texas ($3,796), Georgia ($4,176), Idaho ($4,212), Alabama ($4,398), Tennessee ($4,743), and South Carolina ($4,797). Three Deep South states—Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana—spend more than the national average, as did West Virginia.

5. Forget about decent preventative healthcare.

When it comes to helping low-income households get access to healthcare, almost all red states, including most of the Deep South, have refused to do this under Obamacare. The U.S. Supreme Court gave states the option to open enrollment into state-run Medicaid programs for the uninsured. Red-state Republicans have declined, although federal funds pay for more than 90 percent of this, with the feds paying the entire bill for the first few years. The Urban Institute mapped counties with the most uninsured people locked out of Obamacare. The result looks like a tornado track that starts in Oklahoma and Texas and goes into Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and North Carolina.

6. One result: people self-medicate in response.

Human nature is human nature, regardless of geography. People will find ways to cope with life’s challenges. But public health statistics show the personal response in the poorest states produces some bad results. The Deep South has the country’s highest obesity rates, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The region has the most cigarette smokers. It has the highest teen birth rates. Now, other areas of the country take the trophy for other vices. But according to Gallup, the pollsters, the states with the most unhappy people are in that Deep South-Midwest swath: Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.

7. Forget the lottery, just pray to Jesus.

Unlike Brandy Clarke’s new song, “Pray to Jesus, Play the Lotto,” Southerners do not spend the most on lottery tickets. Massachusetts takes that honor. But the South (and Utah) has the most evangelical Christians. In Alabama, the third most Christian state (56 percent of residents) and the second most religious state, according to the Pew Research Center, Republicans recently proposed a state constitutional amendment to put the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Rep. DuWayne Bridges said school shootings and violent crime was “due to the Ten Commandments not being displayed.”

Whether politicians like Bridges believe that nonsense is not the point. He is promoting that pious view because he knows most Alabamans are likely to have more faith in God than in man, because they are very religious. That is a consequence of poverty. When people are poor and struggling and they can’t do too much about it, they seek escapes—overeating, smoking, doing drugs. Some look for answers in religion. People hold onto what they can control, such as their beliefs.

It’s no surprise that the poorest states are the most religious. Pew ranked the importance of religion, and found the 10 most religious states were, in descending order, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia and Kentucky. But there other ways people who are battered by society try to feel personally powerful, which brings us to firearms.

8. And hold onto that gun!

The poorest states, which are the most religious, also have the most gun violence. That’s a sad consequence of a widespread gun-owning culture that goes beyond rural traditions of hunting. Southerners don’t trust government because Republicans tell them not to, allowing the GOP to do little to help people live better. Democrats who ruled the South during segregation drove the same point home. So it’s no surprise that the poorest states have some of the highest gun ownership rates and highest rates of gun-related violence.

The 10 states with the most gun violence, based on federal statistics, are, in descending order, Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas and Georgia. People who don’t have much power in the world know that guns are powerful. Like their religious beliefs, guns steel people against a hard life. Unfortunately, when people emotionally snap and grab a gun, the result can be deadly.

Breaking the Cycle?

It’s not that difficult to understand the dynamics of voters in the poorest states electing Republicans who share their religious values and love of guns—but who won’t do much else to rebalance their state economies. Old habits are hard to break. If you are used to being treated poorly, that expectation can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If red-state voters demanded more from their politicians, their employers and the institutions that perpetuate poverty, the status quo would begin to unwind and start to shift. Until then, reams of statistics will keep finding that America’s poorest regions are the same red states, run by white Republicans, and filled with people who have the blues.


http://www.salon.com/2014/03/12/8_disturbing_trends_that_reveal_the_souths_ battered_psyche_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow


About what you would expect from Salon, a "lets look down on the South because they vote for Republicans" piece of garbage.

Gun ownership and religion lead to poverty? How exactly? Hint: it's not religious rednecks causing the gun violence pointed out in the article.

The larger question, if it's so bad in the South, why are so many people choosing to move here? The county in which I live has been booming for the past 20 years, as have many destinations in the South. But post a picture of the Rebel Flag, mix in guns and religion, talk about "poverty" and presto - it's some kind of living hell. Wrong.

If it chose to, Snoblon could find negative statistics and/or negative stereotypes to make any region look bad.

I'm sure that someone will counter with the "South takes more from the Treasury than it contributes" canard. OK then, lets put all the military bases, retirees, illegal immigrants, agriculture (subsidies) in the Northeast and revisit that statistic.


Jerry - 9/7/2014 at 05:27 PM

quote:
quote:
So Alloak - Since government is the backbone of a good economy, don't you think the Republican Congress should pass an all encompassing infrastructure bill that puts people back to work re-building our country?

Shouldn't they build a desalination plant in California? Heck we funded Israel's desalination plant, built a major hydro electric dam in Iraq, completely re-built Bhagdad's infrastructure...

Private industry isn't going to do anything for the country's infrastructure. Isn't it time the Republicans did something more than upstruct?


what do you call the 800 billion dollars of stimulus? the next time some progressive says the house won't pass an infrastructure bill have them read this. no. it's not long term but the way dc acts what do you expect?

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=bill/hr-5021-the-high way-and-transportation-funding-act-of-2014


That would have worked out well, except that the funds didn't usually get used for what they were intended to.
mcclatchydc.com/static/features/Contract-to-cheat/Labor-law-dodge-hurts-tax payers-and-workers.html?brand=mac


Muleman1994 - 9/7/2014 at 06:29 PM

About what you would expect from Salon, a "lets look down on the South because they vote for Republicans" piece of garbage.

Gun ownership and religion lead to poverty? How exactly? Hint: it's not religious rednecks causing the gun violence pointed out in the article.

The larger question, if it's so bad in the South, why are so many people choosing to move here? The county in which I live has been booming for the past 20 years, as have many destinations in the South. But post a picture of the Rebel Flag, mix in guns and religion, talk about "poverty" and presto - it's some kind of living hell. Wrong.

If it chose to, Snoblon could find negative statistics and/or negative stereotypes to make any region look bad.

I'm sure that someone will counter with the "South takes more from the Treasury than it contributes" canard. OK then, lets put all the military bases, retirees, illegal immigrants, agriculture (subsidies) in the Northeast and revisit that statistic.



_________________________________________________

How true.

Yes, Salon loves to spread hate.

We do love our guns down South because we actually hunt. Know how to cook our kills too.
Can you imagine some yankee liberal having to survive without a grocery store?

We fly the Confederate Flag because it is a symbol of our history and has nothing to do with slavery or racism. The hate groups such as the NCCAP, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jackson and Sharpton claim it is a symbol of slavery because that is their industry; keeping hate alive.
The democrats ran the South during the slavery era. It was a Republican President that freed the slaves. It was The Republicans that brought The Civil Rights Act while the democrat’s filibustered against it.
BTW – chain gangs started in Philadelphia.

The South is now run mostly be Republicans and those States are doing better every day. People are flocking to The South because of lower taxes, less fees, a lower cost of living, respect for your neighbor and states’ rights. People in The South go to church.
Our food is better too!

We do have our problems especially in the big cities. Black violence is dominate in Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, New Orleans and a few others. That is a self-inflicted problem which is taking care of itself. Those cities are run by black democrats but we all have to pay the cost.
As we say in my home state of Georgia “There is the Great State of Georgia and then there is Atlanta”.

We do invite the Yankees to come on down for vacation. Spend your money and then get the hell out.
A little "Southern Hospitality".


jkeller - 9/7/2014 at 07:04 PM

quote:
About what you would expect from Salon, a "lets look down on the South because they vote for Republicans" piece of garbage.

Gun ownership and religion lead to poverty? How exactly? Hint: it's not religious rednecks causing the gun violence pointed out in the article.

The larger question, if it's so bad in the South, why are so many people choosing to move here? The county in which I live has been booming for the past 20 years, as have many destinations in the South. But post a picture of the Rebel Flag, mix in guns and religion, talk about "poverty" and presto - it's some kind of living hell. Wrong.

If it chose to, Snoblon could find negative statistics and/or negative stereotypes to make any region look bad.

I'm sure that someone will counter with the "South takes more from the Treasury than it contributes" canard. OK then, lets put all the military bases, retirees, illegal immigrants, agriculture (subsidies) in the Northeast and revisit that statistic.

_________________________________________________

How true.

Yes, Salon loves to spread hate.

We do love our guns down South because we actually hunt. Know how to cook our kills too.
Can you imagine some yankee liberal having to survive without a grocery store?

We fly the Confederate Flag because it is a symbol of our history and has nothing to do with slavery or racism. The hate groups such as the NCCAP, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jackson and Sharpton claim it is a symbol of slavery because that is their industry; keeping hate alive.
The democrats ran the South during the slavery era. It was a Republican President that freed the slaves. It was The Republicans that brought The Civil Rights Act while the democrat’s filibustered against it.
BTW – chain gangs started in Philadelphia.

The South is now run mostly be Republicans and those States are doing better every day. People are flocking to The South because of lower taxes, less fees, a lower cost of living, respect for your neighbor and states’ rights. People in The South go to church.
Our food is better too!

We do have our problems especially in the big cities. Black violence is dominate in Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, New Orleans and a few others. That is a self-inflicted problem which is taking care of itself. Those cities are run by black democrats but we all have to pay the cost.
As we say in my home state of Georgia “There is the Great State of Georgia and then there is Atlanta”.

We do invite the Yankees to come on down for vacation. Spend your money and then get the hell out.
A little "Southern Hospitality".




Black cities, black Democrats... Interesting.


Son, you live in Maryland. Maryland was not part of the Confederacy. The closest state border to you is a state the seceded from the CSA. You are a Yankee. Deal with it.


Muleman1994 - 9/7/2014 at 07:57 PM

Black cities, black Democrats... Interesting.


Son, you live in Maryland. Maryland was not part of the Confederacy. The closest state border to you is a state the seceded from the CSA. You are a Yankee. Deal with it.
________________________________________________________________________
I was born in Georgia and lived in Virginia for 96% of my life. I am a true Southerner.
I live in Maryland now to take care of my elderly parents. its a Southern thing.

On black cities, black democrats: the facts hurt don't they?
The violence, rarely reported by the left-wing media, is nearing out of control.
A back man is most likely to die at the hands of another black man.
Major cities are dying such as Detroit because of corrupt democrat mayors (mostly black), union demands (approved my democrats) and the people living there.
40 square miles of Detroit ghetto have to be bulldozed.
White people have nothing to do with it.

Almost all of my associates and friends that are black tell me that they are embarrassed by "that" group" of their race.

The Democrats continue their "programs" and handouts to that group mostly to buy their votes but just enough to keep 'em down.

The Republicans was all people to have a good paying job negating the need for the entitlement society.








jkeller - 9/7/2014 at 08:29 PM

quote:
Black cities, black Democrats... Interesting.


Son, you live in Maryland. Maryland was not part of the Confederacy. The closest state border to you is a state the seceded from the CSA. You are a Yankee. Deal with it.
________________________________________________________________________
I was born in Georgia and lived in Virginia for 96% of my life. I am a true Southerner.
I live in Maryland now to take care of my elderly parents. its a Southern thing.

On black cities, black democrats: the facts hurt don't they?
The violence, rarely reported by the left-wing media, is nearing out of control.
A back man is most likely to die at the hands of another black man.
Major cities are dying such as Detroit because of corrupt democrat mayors (mostly black), union demands (approved my democrats) and the people living there.
40 square miles of Detroit ghetto have to be bulldozed.
White people have nothing to do with it.

Almost all of my associates and friends that are black tell me that they are embarrassed by "that" group" of their race.

The Democrats continue their "programs" and handouts to that group mostly to buy their votes but just enough to keep 'em down.

The Republicans was all people to have a good paying job negating the need for the entitlement society.










Thank you for that response. It makes it very clear who you are and what you believe. BTW, you still do not live in the former Confederacy. Apparently your parent abandoned the mother country as well, son.


Muleman1994 - 9/7/2014 at 08:48 PM

Thank you for that response. It makes it very clear who you are and what you believe. BTW, you still do not live in the former Confederacy. Apparently your parent abandoned the mother country as well, son.
__________________________________________

Attack my parents?
You are a typical liberal piece of **** .


jkeller - 9/7/2014 at 08:53 PM

quote:
Thank you for that response. It makes it very clear who you are and what you believe. BTW, you still do not live in the former Confederacy. Apparently your parent abandoned the mother country as well, son.
__________________________________________

Attack my parents?
You are a typical liberal piece of **** .


I did not attack your parents, son. I merely repeated what you said. Thanks for the personal attack. Once again, it is ok when you do it. Got it, son.


Muleman1994 - 9/7/2014 at 09:37 PM

Still the liberals have no answers.

How do you explain Obama’s inability to create jobs? The unemployment rate for black men should be an embarrassment for you but…

How do you explain that more people have slipped into poverty under the Obama administration?

How do you explain the fact that only democrats are invited to join the congressional black caucus and black democrats are intentionally excluded?

Why do democrats call black republicans “uncle-toms” and race traitors?

Why do democrat party operatives throw oreo cookies at black conservative speakers?

Why do democrats use race as a wedge issue in politics but never seem to actually help black people.

Black people have suffered under the Obama administration and nothing seems to be coming to help them other than political rhetoric.

When incapable of helping the black people the liberals usual answer is attack the republicans.

Devoid of any intellectual argument, Obama and the democrats continue to fail.


Muleman1994 - 9/7/2014 at 11:06 PM

quote:
Are you foghorn leghorn or carl childers, mule man? or a bit of both??.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TQZBHszI4

________________________________________________

Still the liberals have no answers.


Muleman1994 - 9/7/2014 at 11:49 PM

quote:
Are you foghorn leghorn or carl childers, mule man? or a bit of both??.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TQZBHszI4

____________________________

Still the liberals have no answers.


Muleman1994 - 9/9/2014 at 02:09 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Are you foghorn leghorn or carl childers, mule man? or a bit of both??.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TQZBHszI4

____________________________

Still the liberals have no answers.

Go back to your trailer in maryland and learn some facts son. maybe educate yourself [after you learn to read of course]


_____________________________

typical liberal response.
When not able to defend their failed president, ignore the fact and attack the messenger.

BTW - see the new Washington Post/ABC News poll (Sept. 7th)?
The nation deems Obama a failure.


TEX - 9/9/2014 at 05:43 PM




quote:
Black cities, black Democrats... Interesting.


Son, you live in Maryland. Maryland was not part of the Confederacy. The closest state border to you is a state the seceded from the CSA. You are a Yankee. Deal with it.
________________________________________________________________________
I was born in Georgia and lived in Virginia for 96% of my life. I am a true Southerner.
I live in Maryland now to take care of my elderly parents. its a Southern thing.

On black cities, black democrats: the facts hurt don't they?
The violence, rarely reported by the left-wing media, is nearing out of control.
A back man is most likely to die at the hands of another black man.
Major cities are dying such as Detroit because of corrupt democrat mayors (mostly black), union demands (approved my democrats) and the people living there.
40 square miles of Detroit ghetto have to be bulldozed.
White people have nothing to do with it.

Almost all of my associates and friends that are black tell me that they are embarrassed by "that" group" of their race.

The Democrats continue their "programs" and handouts to that group mostly to buy their votes but just enough to keep 'em down.

The Republicans was all people to have a good paying job negating the need for the entitlement society.





Unbelievable that I am posting in this thread, but now I feel I must! On behalf of everyone that was born in Georgia, especially those of us that were then mostly raised in Virginia, I feel I must apologize to everyone here for Muleman's comments...he is obviously a complete j@ckass, please ignore him!

BTW, I'll guess that he could have actually been born in Georgia, possibly while his parents were driving back to NOVA (i.e. Northern Virginia [aka DC suburbs]) from vacation(?) - NOVA is NOT 'the South' in any way, shape or form! Regardless of what he states, he is NOT representative of a 'true Southerner' (as I'm sure many of you already know)...otherwise he wouldn't be showing his @ss, even after debating with some of you D@mn Yankees for so long!

Y'all should quit responding to him and hopefully he will go away!

Peace!


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
https://hittintheweb.com/

Url of this website:
https://hittintheweb.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=136313