Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Boehner is ethically corrupt (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Boehner is ethically corrupt
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you heard the Pres speak tonight and the Republican reply, what are your thoughts. I think John Boehner is ethically corrupt, because he knowingly lied. Obama said good things about Boehner and Boehner slammed Obama. What's going on? The country is in big trouble.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boehner said:

quote:
What we told the president in January was this: the American people will not accept an increase in the debt limit without significant spending cuts and reforms.
Not true. That's what Republicans say. Maybe a plurality of Americans say that, although I doubt they understand the implications. But "The American People" do not say that, and to claim that definitively is a partisan lie. And Obama has agreed to more spending cuts and reforms than many Americans are comfortable with.

quote:
Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support.
5 Dems voted Aye, 9 Repubs voted Nay. Not really bipartisan.

quote:
“The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more. . .you pay more.
Pure partisan bulls**t. Balanced means cut some spending, increase some revenue. Pants on fire.

quote:
“The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you’re spending more money than you’re taking in, you need to spend less of it.
Umm, hello? Reality knocking here, but Republican's have their fingers in their ears saying "Na na na I can't hear you!" Ask any 10 year old that question - if you are spending more than you're taking in, you need to spend less of it... OR..." I don't need to finish the sentence. Sane people know the answer. Idiots refuse to acknowledge it.

Idiots. Their blind ideology will cause significant damage to the country.

Increasing the debt ceiling has happened dozens of times. This time, when it will do the most damage, some Republicans are extorting the country. Yes, I won't do what I am supposed to do, unless you do exactly what I want, without any compromises on my part, against your own best interests. That is extortion.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everyone wants to tighten the purse strings when the opposite party is in office, regardless of the crisis, and to **** with the country. Remember calls to balance the budget in early 2002?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NOT to say that's any justification for what Boener's doing now.

"Idiots. Their blind ideology will cause significant damage to the country."

Calling them idiots gives them more credit than I would give them. I fear this is an implementation of Right-wing-nihilism, aka "Starve the Beast." The Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged" wet dream of destroying the country in order to save it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Star Pilot 111:
If you heard the Pres speak tonight and the Republican reply, what are your thoughts. I think John Boehner is ethically corrupt, because he knowingly lied. Obama said good things about Boehner and Boehner slammed Obama. What's going on? The country is in big trouble.

I've never in my adult life heard a President of the US call a press conference (let alone at prime time) to debate a subject. And you decide to go after Boehner who was merely responding to the President. Presidents call such emergency press conferences to announce important decisions or inform the public of a disaster. They don't call them to call the opposing party poo-poo heads.

Boehner was not ethically corrupt. Nor do I think Obama was, though he was politically stupid. He is forgoing the normal prestige of Presidential office, by initiating a public partisan fight. Obama's prestige dwindles further due to his own actions.

[ July 26, 2011, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Standing up to ongoing attacks and finally starting to actively respond to them as such is, in no way, initiating a fight.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Standing up to ongoing attacks and finally starting to actively respond to them as such is, in no way, initiating a fight.

President Obama was the one who called the Prime Time address. Representative Boehner was responding to Obama's address, not the other way around.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. - Patrick Moynihan

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think J is right, that was a tactical mistake for Barry. There's a very good chance that he gets a bill in front of him with cuts and no new revenues and may not give him the debt ceiling he wants. It would be awesome if he vetoed it ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Indeed it would. It would in fact be the first thing he's done yet that would even make me consider voting for him.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Standing up to ongoing attacks and finally starting to actively respond to them as such is, in no way, initiating a fight.

President Obama was the one who called the Prime Time address. Representative Boehner was responding to Obama's address, not the other way around.

He called it out of nowhere? everything was running nice and smoothly up till now? You'd have to be coming out of a coma lat lasted at least three years to have missed the ongoing fight that he's not only starting to actually respond to instead of simply trying to resort to appeasement at every turn.

He's finally starting to show that maybe he can be something more than a combination of the worst of Hoover and Chamberlain, but he's got a long way to go yet to actually reverse the damage done so far.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Indeed it would. It would in fact be the first thing he's done yet that would even make me consider voting for him.

I'm not going to be happy with him until he actually stands up for job creation instead of just holding out for a less painful form of suicide. Any primary challenger that wants to burn him on failing to do that here has my vote.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All Liberals and Democrats have the same dilemma. There won't be a primary challenge, but in the general election would you rather vote for the arch-Con flavor of the month, an nth Party candidate with big plans and no opportunity, stay home, or pull the lever for Obama? As Greg House likes to say to his Residents when they don't have any good choices: Do Your Damn Job, because staying home is not an option.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
. He is forgoing the normal prestige of Presidential office, by initiating a public partisan fight. Obama's prestige dwindles further due to his own actions.

Obama's the best rhetorician we've had in the White House since Reagan. Making speeches doesn't diminish his prestige except amongst those inclined to dislike him in the first place.

Boehner did fine as well. He's got a right to make his case.

We need more of this not less. Screw prestige, we're not a monarchy.

[ July 26, 2011, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From NYTimes

quote:
The speaker said Mr. Obama wanted to raise taxes too high and would not make “fundamental changes” to entitlement benefit programs like Medicare.

But according to a White House official, Mr. Obama had agreed over the coming decade to cut $250 billion from Medicare spending and $310 billion from other domestic entitlement programs, like farm subsidies and education programs. And Mr. Obama was willing to change the formula for Social Security cost-of living adjustments, which many economists say would more accurately reflect inflation, for savings of about $125 billion more.

Republicans asked for spending cuts before they would approve the debt ceiling increase, which I think has never been done before. (Reagan signed 17 debt ceiling increases). Democrats disagreed, then assented.

Republicans asked for dollar-for-dollar spending cuts. Democrats disagreed, then assented.

Republicans asked for no tax increases. I think the Reid plan has no new tax increases.

Republicans held up what was previously a no-conditions bill, threatening the well being of the country. Democrats caved on everything. Republicans gave up nothing.

Then they have the inconceivable audacity to say the Democrats are not compromising.

As far as who is an idiot, I think Republican leaders are only doing what their constituency asks of them. They want a great government without paying for it. That is idiocy.

As far as Obama getting mad, do you honestly think that will accomplish anything? Republicans can then air ads of an angry Obama, and claim he is not being a mature adult.

Viking, Boehner has a right to make his case. But he is lying through his teeth, and half the country is buying it. He is using dirty tricks, negotiating in bad faith, and misleading the public.

President Obama's press conference was a polite attempt to point out the out-and-out lies that Republicans are telling. A balance of spending cuts and new revenue is what Americans want. Republicans' blind refusal to have any revenue increase is the only significant problem. Eliminate that and the problem is solved in hours.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We DO need more of this. Let the public see the real character of the people they elected. Let the public see the political lies. That "cut cap and balance" lie is just a small example of what we will see if this continues and we do our homework.
This is the 1st time in history such a fuss has been made over raising the debt ceiling. Many of the Republicans causing the fuss are from the south [Wink]

Obama implied this mess all started because of the G.W. Bush admin. (tax relief for the wealthy people and corporations and letting big financial institutions self-regulate, all contributing to our financial and housing crash.)
I don't think he said enough.

Companies don't create jobs. Consumers create jobs. The more the consumers buy the more people the companies have to hire. It isn't the other way around, as the Republicans fantasize. If the tax relief goes to the consumers they have more money to spend. That gives the companies the need to hire more people and it gives them more money. DA

Making the wealthy and corporations pay what they used to pay is NOT raising taxes. This Republican montra about Obama wanting to tax the American people is another lie. Sure they are American but some with companies in other countries. They should be taxed even more.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
All Liberals and Democrats have the same dilemma. There won't be a primary challenge, but in the general election would you rather vote for the arch-Con flavor of the month, an nth Party candidate with big plans and no opportunity, stay home, or pull the lever for Obama? As Greg House likes to say to his Residents when they don't have any good choices: Do Your Damn Job, because staying home is not an option.

Of course you are right. Liberals are going to hold their nose and vote for Obama regardless what his actions are. He knows that and isn't worried about his base.

Nor are Conservatives going to vote for Obama for much the same reasons. They are going to hold their nose and vote for the Conservative candidate even if it's not their first choice.

The critical factor is which side is most affected by voter apathy and which side can swing the middle.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Liberals are going to hold their nose and vote for Obama regardless what his actions are. He knows that and isn't worried about his base.
This would be a miscalculation on his part. By trying to appeal to stupid idiots, he risks making his base so apathetic that they stay home.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm in his base. I promise you, I am not voting for him, unless he changes course, and gets some rather significant positive changes accomplished. At this point, he'd have to completely reverse his policies on a number of major issues to earn my vote. For certain, I will be knocking on people's doors and explaining why I am voting third party.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With some sadness I have to say Good for you! Sometimes you have to close your eyes to what comes next when you pull the lever.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
I'm in his base. I promise you, I am not voting for him, unless he changes course, and gets some rather significant positive changes accomplished. At this point, he'd have to completely reverse his policies on a number of major issues to earn my vote. For certain, I will be knocking on people's doors and explaining why I am voting third party.

While I understand the idealism, I don't think that many who are currently saying this can actually do it. At some point, pragmatism will kick in for most of these voters. A vote for a third party candidate is essentially a net positive vote for whatever Republican is nominated.

I think a lot will come down to who the nominee is - Romney, more people might actually go third party thinking he's more centrist. What if Palin or Christie are on the ticket? Perry may very well be on it. I wonder how many would throw their vote away with those stakes? I am certain this will be part of Barry's strategery in 2012; hoping someone can be demonized like they did Palin so as to make fear of anyone but him keep his base in line. It's not a crazy strategy seeing just how damn well it worked for him last time.

[ July 26, 2011, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Palin wasn't demonized. She's an idiot ("all of them"). McCain was no rock star either (Remember "My fellow prisoners..."?). Did you see her recent movie? Of course not, and neither did anybody else. People have figured out who she is and what she's worth. People on the hate-filled right like you like to demonize people on the left who don't love your delusions.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Palin wasn't demonized. She's an idiot ... People on the hate-filled right like you like to demonize people on the left who don't love your delusions.

Pot meet kettle.
Kettle meet pot.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm referring to G2 specifically. Would you like to argue that Palin was qualified to be President of United States during the 2008 election cycle?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When you say things like "Palin is an idiot", you are demonizing her. So accusing G2 of being a hate filled person who demonizes people on the left in the very same post is somewhat ironic.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
G2:
While I understand the idealism, I don't think that many who are currently saying this can actually do it.

Most elections are won (or lost, rather) by those who don't show up to vote. People holding their noses often can't manage to reach the lever.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"When you say things like "Palin is an idiot", you are demonizing her. So accusing G2 of being a hate filled person who demonizes people on the left in the very same post is somewhat ironic."

I shall moderate my language. She knew virtually nothing about the military, foreign affairs or the workings of the Executive Branch. Her working knowledge of US history was limited enough that she could not engage in spontaneous discussions about that or those other topics with confidence or credibility. She lacked diplomatic skills and was not a regular participant in the community of scholars, politicians or diplomats that debate US political and governance issues.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
G2:
While I understand the idealism, I don't think that many who are currently saying this can actually do it.

Most elections are won (or lost, rather) by those who don't show up to vote. People holding their noses often can't manage to reach the lever.
That's true. We'll see. Certainly Obama stands little chance of winning if the economy doesn't improve. But assuming it does improve, I think most of his older liberal base will come out and vote for him. I'm not as confident he can count on getting the youth vote in the same percentages he did last time.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
G2:
While I understand the idealism, I don't think that many who are currently saying this can actually do it.

Most elections are won (or lost, rather) by those who don't show up to vote. People holding their noses often can't manage to reach the lever.
Yeah, but then we see a guy like TomDavidson who's made it clear he won't vote for him in several posts before say this:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Indeed it would. It would in fact be the first thing he's done yet that would even make me consider voting for him.

See, he's looking for a reason to support Barry again. Everyone in Barry's base is, they just need that one thing that they can use to justify it in their minds - the veto being Tom's case. The door is open, in fact it never closed. They just want one reason to step through it and pull that lever for Barry again. Couple that with what will be a very nasty Palinesque smear campaign by the MSM to fully demonize the Republican nominee so that liberals feel like the stakes are too high to throw a vote away on a third party protest vote and more noses than not will get held.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Everyone in Barry's base is, they just need that one thing that they can use to justify it in their minds - the veto being Tom's case. The door is open, in fact it never closed. They just want one reason to step through it and pull that lever for Barry again. Couple that with what will be a very nasty Palinesque smear campaign by the MSM to fully demonize the Republican nominee so that liberals feel like the stakes are too high to throw a vote away on a third party protest vote and more noses than not will get held.
Hey, JWatts, care to comment on any demonization in that screed? [Big Grin]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No demonization there, no screed at all. It's just the obvious that Tom (and I suspect many other liberals in Barry's base) is looking for a reason to come back into the fold. The smear campaign on Palin is historical fact and it worked very well, they'll use it again and hope for the same effect. What's demonizing about that?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How is that demonization? G2 didn't accuse Obama voters of doing anything bad. He said that in all likely hood that they will end up voting for Obama again.

Or is voting for Obama somehow demonic? I'm open to the position. [Wink]

[ July 26, 2011, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess that Obama opponents, who look for any reason to vote against him and smear his character would find nothing demonizing about that post. With Fox's incessant campaign to besmerch the President any chance they get, it's no wonder that any wild criticism of Obama voters and the media would be thought of nothing special. Just stating the facts.

Nope, no demonizing in G2's post, or mine, is there? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really Wayward that's your point of view? If G2 had made this statement regarding Bush in 2004:

quote:

Everyone in Georgie's base is, they just need that one thing that they can use to justify it in their minds - the veto being JWatts's case. The door is open, in fact it never closed. They just want one reason to step through it and pull that lever for Georgie again.

Would you say this statement is 'demonizing' conservatives? I wouldn't and I are one.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So can someone explain the following:

-Non-defense discretionary income, adjusted for population and inflation, is the same as it was in 2001 when we had a surplus.

-Government revenue is down 20% in the same measure.

-Republicans insist on holding the country hostage, not paying bills for things we already bought, unless we cut non-defense discrectionary spending, and refuse to increase revenue.

How is this not idiotic, or evil?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you explain this too?

Corporations are sitting on more cash than they know what to do with...literally. How exactly would lower taxes for them help them create jobs? All it will do is add more cash to the accounts that are not being used to create jobs.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
velcro:
-Non-defense discretionary income, adjusted for population and inflation, is the same as it was in 2001 when we had a surplus.

-Government revenue is down 20% in the same measure.

Well, are you trying to point out that the USA is barely out of recession today, whereas in 2001 the economy was overheated and at the edge of the dot com bubble bursting?

I'm not sure what effect that would have on your comparison. It might also be helpful to get an idea of total military spending (budgeted as well as discretionary) for the two periods. Otherwise, calling the Republican extortion outright evil might be a bit premature.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boehner's speech angered me, but his speech also seemed as if it would be persuasive to many. If it were not for the fact that he made up facts far more that usual even for politics, he made a coherent case.

The disturbing issue is that we see the mainstream media find it very difficult to assert that one side in a particular debate is lying far more than the other side. And this impotence eliminates the dis-incentive to just make up facts and state them with certainty. I wonder how big a lie would one side have to proclaim for the majority of the media take a position and say the _________ Party Leader is clearly lying.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
JWatts said:
Really Wayward that's your point of view? If G2 had made this statement regarding Bush in 2004:

quote:

Everyone in Georgie's base is, they just need that one thing that they can use to justify it in their minds - the veto being JWatts's case. The door is open, in fact it never closed. They just want one reason to step through it and pull that lever for Georgie again.

Would you say this statement is 'demonizing' conservatives? I wouldn't and I are one.
Well, that "quote" you created basically says that you are a liar, not really mad at Georgie and not really wanting to not vote for him. It's just a front your putting on, a facade to make you look better than you really are. Ultimately, you will vote for George regardless of what he does--you'll find any little excuse to do so. So saying that you won't is just a little show you put on, to make yourself look like you have higher morals than allegiance to your party. You and all your fellow Conservatives.

So, yeah, I find it demonizing.

You also forgot the rest of G2's rant:

quote:
Couple that with what will be a very nasty Palinesque smear campaign by the MSM to fully demonize the Republican nominee so that liberals feel like the stakes are too high to throw a vote away on a third party protest vote and more noses than not will get held.
Whether you believe the MSM demonized Palin or not, saying that they will the next nominee, regardless of who he is, is demonizing. He has all ready decided that the MSM will treat the nominee unfairly--you don't even have to look. If saying someone is going to do something wrong before they have done so is not demonizing, I don't know what is.

Besmerching the integrity of all liberals, and besmerching the integrity of the entire MSM (I assume Fox is exempt from this smerch [Smile] ) certainly seems to me as much demonizing as calling Palin an "idiot" (a rather harsh opinion backed up by some facts.) [Smile]

[ July 27, 2011, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Well, that "quote" you created basically says that you are a liar, not really mad at Georgie and not really wanting to not vote for him. It's just a front your putting on, a facade to make you look better than you really are. Ultimately, you will vote for George regardless of what he does--you'll find any little excuse to do so. So saying that you won't is just a little show you put on, to make yourself look like you have higher morals than allegiance to your party.

I know you want to be offended since that gives you what you believe is some kind of a moral high ground but the reality is I never meant it that way. I was more along the lines of people being more pragmatic once the decision has to actually be made and that they will choose what they believe to be the lesser of 2 evils. There is a certain moral calculus to that but I wasn't going for where you ended up.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Whether you believe the MSM demonized Palin or not, saying that they will the next nominee, regardless of who he is, is demonizing. He has all ready decided that the MSM will treat the nominee unfairly--you don't even have to look.

I tend to believe that once you start going after autistic children that it's demonizing but maybe you have a looser standard than I. However, if you think they will back off after going that far then you're in denial. It worked, why would they not do it again?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald,

Military has gone up 74% in that time period. Not adjusted for population, since our defense requirements are the same to a large extent, regardless of population.

My point is, regardless of economic status, revenue is down 20%. When you look at a favorable baseline, e.g. 2001, and look at the deltas, you see that non-defense discretionary spending is flat, and revenue is down 20%. Common sense says raise revenue first, and cut spending where prudent. The argument that raising taxes will hurt is baloney, because corporations are sitting on trillions in cash, not using it for job creation, and banks are not loaning it out. Increasing taxes will not divert funds from job creation. Those are the facts in the reality based community- increasing revenue is the right path, non-defense discretionary spending cuts are nice to have, but not really the problem.

In the Republican leadership, any proposed revenue increase is so heinous, so anathema to them, that they are perfectly willing to create a default of US debt, if that is what it takes to prevent a single penny of tax increase. Period, non-negotiatiable. And they are pushing hard on non-defense discretionary spending. So not only is the Republican strategy contrary to reason, but it has the effect of shielding the wealthy and powerful, while also removing resources from the weakest and most disadvantaged.

Unsupported by any valid reason, and harmful to the most vulnerable. If that doesn't qualify as evil, let me know what does.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1