AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@wandeljw,

Oh okay. Good one. Smile

To be specific, I accused you of appearing to misquote me. But I can see how you would not have assumed that I would take it that way, and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong not to do that.

Do you want me to pray for you? Smile

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you want me to pray for you?

It seems we are all praying together this evening. Debra has joined us in prayer. Smile

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Well every little bit helps.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

To be specific, I accused you of appearing to misquote me. But I can see how you would not have assumed that I would take it that way, and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong not to do that.

HELELUYAH, a miracle just happened!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Foxie wrote:
Quote:
To be specific, I accused you of appearing to misquote me. But I can see how you would not have assumed that I would take it that way, and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong not to do that.

HELELUYAH, a miracle just happened!

I can now truly see the power of prayer. Good work, God! You placed a dent in her devilish armor . . . HUH? What did you say?

Ohhhhhh . . . she's trying to deceive us again by throwing us a little humility bone? Not a miracle? A deception? Be not deceived, be forever vigilant. Okay. Got it!

0 Replies

How can anyone pray here with Ican screaming at the top of his lungs to makes sure he is noticed? We should all pray he overcomes his inferiority complex, or that he eventually grows taller than five feet.

Did anyone notice we were all posting "prayer" and "pray" and an ad popped up at the bottom for the Christian Prayer Center?

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

How can anyone pray here with Ican screaming at the top of his lungs to makes sure he is noticed? We should all pray he overcomes his inferiority complex, or that he eventually grows taller than five feet.

Sure. Ican repeats his posts over and over again as if the 999th time will be more effective than the first time. But, in reality he is attempting to reinforce his own misguided beliefs out of fear that something we say here might bring his world view crashing down around him. Unconsciously, however, he is unhappy with his unenlightened world view--and the louder he screams about it--the more he comes to understand its flaws. I scroll past his screeds because I understand that he is akin to a Captain Ahab who is driven by a maniacal desire to kill Moby Dick. It's a lonely voyage for Ican, but one that he must take if he is destined to conquer his nemesis (known as unenlightenment). If we ignore his screeds and inner conflict--he is truly a nice guy no matter how tall or short he may be. And he likes to fly! Smile

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Moreover the events at hand involved only three people

George,

Surely you are not so naive as to believe that this is true? You know that it involved more than three people.

Every time the Bush admin has admitted something on this issue, it's been a lie.

First, we don't torture.
Then, well, maybe we rough 'em up a bit.
Then, well, maybe we use stress positions and humiliation.
And dogs. Yeah, we use those too.
But we don't waterboard! Except, we do. But only a couple of times!
Actually, we did it quite a bit, along with a bunch of other unsavory stuff.

They are still lying, George. The truth will never be fully admitted, but the concept that we limited abuse to three people is laughable. In Bagram and Abu Ghraib we beat and tortured people to death.

Quote:
The previous administration claimed the information so gathered contributed significantly to the interception of a planned attack in Los Angeles and unspecified others.

Once again, a lie. The 'LA tower' attack was busted up in late 2002. We didn't (supposedly) start waterboarding KSM and others until 2oo3. KSM admitted to things we already knew about and had already stopped. There's no justification here.

Remember Bush's words, right before the invasion of Iraq?

Quote:
War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, “I was just following orders.”

It should be no defense for us, either. We should investigate those who ordered torture to be done, reportedly to try and get evidence of a link between AQ and Iraq. We should investigate those who wrote legal opinions specifically in order to justify torture. We should investigate those in the CIA who carried it out. And we should try any and all who are found to be culpable in the beating, torture and murder of US prisoners.

Cycloptichorn

I think you are asserting things here that you simply don't know to be true.

In addition I believe you have very little real experience in the world that you speak of so knowingly - and it shows.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, Congress had to submit the 2009 budget to Bush, and Bush had to sign the 2009 budget for the 2009 budget to be adopted. However, Obama, and the current Congress can modify that budget whenever they agree to modify it. They are in fact doing that by increasing spending over that budgeted in the 2009 budget Bush signed.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I merely do not pretend that modern Americans or their leaders are any different than those in the past have been; that is to say: it's always worse than is admitted, and there's no reason to believe the words of liars.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Trying to blame it all on Obama is partisanship of the highest order ican. But then we have come to expect that from you.

I am most certainly not blaming it all on Obama!

Mis-stating my position is what I have come to expect of you, parados.

This again is my postion:

(1)
The Bush administration spent billions of dollars per year in their violation of the Constitution of the USA.

The Obama administration is in the process of spending even more billions of dollars per year in their violation of the Constitution of the USA.

We have tolerated this criminal activity long enough. Our federal government is mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's futures with their criminal activity.

(2)
Obama and his supporters are simpletons. They have chosen to solve the problems created by Bush’s excessive spending and lending, and rescue the USA’s economy, by INCREASING instead of decreasing that excessive spending and lending.

(3)
The federal Budget for 2009 was PASSED IN 2008 BY THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRAT MAJORITIES AND THEN SUBMITTED TO BUSH FOR HIS SIGNATURE. THEN BUSH SIGNED IN 2008 THE FEDERAL BUDGET FOR 2009.

Since 2008, OBAMA HAS IN 2009 added significantly to the 2009 spending authorized by THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITIES & BUSH IN 2008.

OBAMA DID NOT ATTEMPT TO CUT THE SPENDING AUTHORIZED IN 2008 FOR 2009. INSTEAD OBAMA INCREASED IN 2009 THE SPENDING AUTHORIZED IN 2008 FOR 2009.

(4)
Now, the 2009 budget is all Obama's adopted and nurtured baby.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard" wrote:

How can anyone pray here with Ican screaming at the top of his lungs to makes sure he is noticed? We should all pray he overcomes his inferiority complex, or that he eventually grows taller than five feet.

~~~~ !????! ~~~~
~~~~ (O|O) ~~~~
.~~~~ ( O ) ~~~~.
Your shockingly hysterical post is duly noted!

0 Replies

I'd prefer two viable national parties. Perhaps I'll have to wait a while.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I think you should check your math before you claim you haven't been blaming all of 2009 on Obama. Your math clearly shows you HAVE been blaming all of 2009 on Obama.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-379#post-3632595

Quote:

Obama is promising a deficit over his 8 year term of office, 2009 thru 2016, of $6,789 billion, or more than 3 times Bush’s 2001 thru 2008 deficit of $1,962 billion, in order to rescue the USA’s economy.

Quote:

The sum of Bush's $billion dollar positive and negative surpluses, Jan. 20, 2001 to Jan. 20,2009:

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-371#post-3629898

That is 10 posts where you blamed Obama for all of 2009 or absolved Bush of any of 2009 deficits. I figured 10 posts would be enough to even make you realize you are lying about claiming you never tried to blame all of 2009 on Obama. There are probably another 10 out where you posted the same false information. For you to claim I am "misstating your position" is laughable. You stated your position quite clearly including your "math" to back up your position.

Quote:

(4)
Now, the 2009 budget is all Obama's adopted and nurtured baby.

Why is Bush not responsible for the 600 billion dollar deficit from Oct 1, 2008 to Jan 21 2009? You are clearly STILL blaming Obama for that deficit which Obama had absolutely nothing to do with.

1 Reply

@parados,

You're overlooking the fact that as of January 21, 2009, President Obama can ask Congress to add to, reverse, change, alter, roll back or anything else related to the budget, expenditures, and any special outlays that were authorized in 2008. President Obama asked President Bush to not spend the last half of the 2008 $700 bailout money and President Bush complied with his request. The last allocation bill was not passed in 2008 but was on President Obama's watch and it could have been significantly rolled back far in excess of the token $100,000 million that Obama requested that his cabinet save.

So what Obama signs into law or whatever the Congress spends from inaugeration day is Obama's baby unless Congress should refuse his requests to reverse any policy or programs already in force. President Bush had the same situation in 2001 when he took over and any deficit accumulated that year was on his watch and is included in his record.

And now with Spector's change to the Democratic party, President Obama can't blame 'obstructionist Republicans' for anything from this point on. He and his Democrats have unrestricted power with no checks or balances to prevent them from doing anything they want to do to us from this point on.

Gives you a warm, fuzzy, secure feeling doesn't it.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And now with Spector's change to the Democratic party, President Obama can't blame 'obstructionist Republicans' for anything from this point on. He and his Democrats have unrestricted power with no checks or balances to prevent them from doing anything they want to do to us from this point on.

Gives you a warm, fuzzy, secure feeling doesn't it.

Spector is a moderate Republican. He is running for reelection next year. He made it clear, because right wing conservatives will finance and support another Republican candidate to run against him in the party primary, he will be shut out before he even gets to the general election. Thus, switching parties is a technical necessity to increase the odds of his political survival. There is nothing preventing him from switching back to the Republican party after his Senate seat is secure for another six years. Is there?

What is interesting is Specter's call for moderate Republicans to orchestrate an uprising and take back control of the party. The moderates or centrists don't want to be in bed with the right wing conservatives anymore because this unholy union doesn't help them win general elections. This marriage or coalition of convenience is over and it's time for a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. If control of the Republican party isn't wrenched from the tight grip of the right wingers who want to "purify" the party, the party will cease to be a national party. Right wingers are becoming more and more irrelevant in our political landscape.

0 Replies

What is truly funny is how conservatives believe that they are mainstream when they are far right wingers. Even if they "purify" their party, drive away everyone who does not walk in lock-step with them, and acquire 100 percent ownership of the GOP--what's the point? 80 percent of the voters will reject their candidates and their numbers in political power will diminish. Do they really think they can turn the tide? Will the young and diverse voters of tomorrow suddenly become enamored with protecting the individual right to own assault weapons, oppressing the gays, depriving women of their right to determine their own procreative destinies, approving school prayer, teaching creationism, erecting monuments to the Christian God on public property, promoting greed and laissez faire capitalism by calling for the deregulation of commerce & banking, financing wars of choice, and abolishing taxes?

0 Replies

Roll Call: Senate vote on Sebelius' confirmation

Quote:

The 65-31 roll call by which the Senate voted to confirm Kathleen Sebelius as the nation's health and human services secretary.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to confirm Sebelius and a "no" vote was a vote against it.

Voting "yes" were 54 Democrats, 9 Republicans and 2 independents.

Voting "no" were 0 Democrats and 31 Republicans.

The only ones who voted "no" to confirming Sebelius were Republicans. This demonstrates that right wing/conservative Republicans choose to be obstructionists--the party of "no." The roll call list is available at the link provided.

Senate Confirms Kansas Governor as Health Secretary

Quote:

Republicans had delayed the vote because of concerns about Ms. Sebelius’s support of abortion rights as governor of Kansas for the last six years. Some Republicans also asserted that she and the administration intended to ration health care using the results of research comparing the cost and effectiveness of different treatments.

The right wing conservative obstructionists voted against the Sebelius because she supports a woman's right to determine her own procreative destiny. A woman's right to do so is legal and secured by the Constitution. Conservatives do not believe in freedom; they want to abuse the power of the government to oppress women and others. Foxfyre's claim that conservatives promote individual liberty is a LIE.

Conservatives also resort to scare mongering and lies. Where is their proof that Obama intends to deprive sick people of health care?

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

The only ones who voted "no" to confirming Sebelius were Republicans. This demonstrates that right wing/conservative Republicans choose to be obstructionists--the party of "no." The roll call list is available at the link provided.

So anyone with an opposing point of view is an obstructionist? You want every vote to be 100-0? As a citizen you want no dissenting opinions? And you think of yourself as a "lawyer"?

You're a joke!!! Laughing

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

President Obama can't blame 'obstructionist Republicans' for anything from this point on.

This isn't an astute political observation. It's a quote from Bill Kristol on Fox yesterday. No small irony in it either as Kristol authored not only the famous memo that laid the strategy for Gingrich's obstructionism of the early Clinton program but another, with the same goal and rationale, two months ago. What's left of the Republican Party (not much, and certainly not much of value) will continue to obstruct through the foreseeable future and it will continue to be both highly visible and counter-productive to the tasks of governance and to future electoral chances for the party.

I've never before seen a political party so intent upon self-immolation as this one has now become. Who'd have guessed that The End of Days would be so localized. It's sort of small-tent armageddon.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know