Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Werent we told.....

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
August 6, 2011 1:00:00 PM

Werent we told:
Theres no way our credit rating would suffer?
We needed 4 trillion in spending cuts?
This president is being treated differently?
As the prez said"we shouldnt raise the debt limit, as it shows weakness in leadership, obligations to foreign entities etc" when he was talking about then prez Bush?
We were already in the ditch, and it was those terrorists (true repubs) that put us there?
There are things such as rino's?
rino's are much like donkeys?
Anyone not a rino or donkey is daft/terrorist and too far out there with their economic policies?
Didnt the media go right along?
That the media for months, forgot to mention the spending reductions required to protect our credit rating, as they were only preoccupied with the rinos and obamams/donkies raising the debt limit?


How about we:

Fire the lot of them?
Make heroes out of those so called terrorists that held to the belief that not doing what the people wanted them to was akin to sheer Washington same old same old disaster?
Start arresting them?
Make them live on food stamps, and anyone going to 2 million dollar fundraisers as well?
For years?
Admit some of what they say is true, education is poorly missed here, as these ilk will still not only receive votes, but many will get re elected?
That we start understanding that this is no longer funny, a joke, an experiment, sexually, racially,monetarily driven, for the sake of division, as we no longer can afford these ideas coming from anyone in our greater family, including our leaders, and anyone going to such words, just needs to leave, period.

Weve lost the discression to understand the simple basics when we cant joke about the things we can afford to, but others step and dont allow us to, so we also should call for the death of political correctness.
Its been my experience, when you let down your guard enough to laugh at yourself is when youre at your finest, and mainly accepted with warmth by those different than you.

We can longer afford any certain party, as each has shown how weak and how anti constituent they really are.
The polls are in, they suck, their numbers suck, their ideas suck, their rhetoric sucks,
their results suck, their lies suck, while we should oust them, to give them a real blow.

More about : werent told

August 6, 2011 1:53:37 PM

So you would have liked to see Obama just scrap a trillion from the budget beginning in 2009? Sure enough, that would solve the nation's financial problems (although millions of people would have starved, but what the hell).

So how would he have done that?


- Universal healthcare, to shave 50% of the total cost, like Canada? Nooo, too socialist for the voters.

- Ending the wars? Nooo, too cowardly for the voters.

- Put America on green energy instead of expensive oil and creating jobs in the process? Nooo, too hippie for the voters.

- Ending the tax cuts for the rich? Nooo, again too socialist for the voters (anything that doesn't agree with Reagonomics is socialism and therefore evil).

- Destroying medicare and medicaid? Nooo, the voters have grandma's that rely on these programs (which are socialist, but they've been around long enough for people to conveniently forget that).

- Ending the tax cuts for the not-so-rich? Nooo, most voters want to keep their tax cuts.

- Cut back on the military? Nooo, the voters want security man! How can they sleep soundly if their government doesn't have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined?

Well, that's it then, the voters want to cut the budget, just not any meaningful part of it. Ergo, Obama has been doing exactly what the voters wanted.
August 6, 2011 2:27:04 PM

Gulli said:
So you would have liked to see Obama just scrap a trillion from the budget beginning in 2009? Sure enough, that would solve the nation's financial problems (although millions of people would have starved, but what the hell).

So how would he have done that?


- Universal healthcare, to shave 50% of the total cost, like Canada? Nooo, too socialist for the voters.

- Ending the wars? Nooo, too cowardly for the voters.

- Put America on green energy instead of expensive oil and creating jobs in the process? Nooo, too hippie for the voters.

- Ending the tax cuts for the rich? Nooo, again too socialist for the voters (anything that doesn't agree with Reagonomics is socialism and therefore evil).

- Destroying medicare and medicaid? Nooo, the voters have grandma's that rely on these programs (which are socialist, but they've been around long enough for people to conveniently forget that).

- Ending the tax cuts for the not-so-rich? Nooo, most voters want to keep their tax cuts.

- Cut back on the military? Nooo, the voters want security man! How can they sleep soundly if their government doesn't have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined?

Well, that's it then, the voters want to cut the budget, just not any meaningful part of it. Ergo, Obama has been doing exactly what the voters wanted.

Admit some of what they say is true, education is poorly missed here, as these ilk will still not only receive votes, but many will get re elected?
That we start understanding that this is no longer funny, a joke, an experiment, sexually, racially,monetarily driven, for the sake of division, as we no longer can afford these ideas coming from anyone in our greater family, including our leaders, and anyone going to such words, just needs to leave, period.

August 6, 2011 4:08:07 PM

There is no federal recall option, you can't act to fire any of them. You can refuse to rehire any of them, but good luck with that, and you've got at least another year for most of them.

August 6, 2011 4:21:47 PM

Did I mention legalizing mariuana would save dozens of billions of dollars each year? But nooo, the voters aren't used to mariuana like they are to alcohol and tobacco...
August 6, 2011 4:35:00 PM

But but if we did that, then the private corrections industry would suffer!

August 6, 2011 8:48:28 PM

MysticMiner said:
There is no federal recall option, you can't act to fire any of them. You can refuse to rehire any of them, but good luck with that, and you've got at least another year for most of them.


Let em remind the WHOLE DAMN nation what Impeachment is...it is cool concept where peopel throw guys out of office for doing crap to the country.

Interesting. :na: 
August 6, 2011 8:56:09 PM

Impeachment requires Congress to act, it is not an option for the citizenship to express their wishes.

So, no, that's not something you can do, unless you're a member of the House.

If you are, then GTFO this website and do your damn job.

August 7, 2011 2:50:41 AM

Gulli said:
So you would have liked to see Obama just scrap a trillion from the budget beginning in 2009? Sure enough, that would solve the nation's financial problems (although millions of people would have starved, but what the hell).

So how would he have done that?


- Universal healthcare, to shave 50% of the total cost, like Canada? Nooo, too socialist for the voters.

- Ending the wars? Nooo, too cowardly for the voters.

- Put America on green energy instead of expensive oil and creating jobs in the process? Nooo, too hippie for the voters.

- Ending the tax cuts for the rich? Nooo, again too socialist for the voters (anything that doesn't agree with Reagonomics is socialism and therefore evil).

- Destroying medicare and medicaid? Nooo, the voters have grandma's that rely on these programs (which are socialist, but they've been around long enough for people to conveniently forget that).

- Ending the tax cuts for the not-so-rich? Nooo, most voters want to keep their tax cuts.

- Cut back on the military? Nooo, the voters want security man! How can they sleep soundly if their government doesn't have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined?

Well, that's it then, the voters want to cut the budget, just not any meaningful part of it. Ergo, Obama has been doing exactly what the voters wanted.



Some good points Gulli

:) 
August 7, 2011 5:07:29 AM

Obama "stood" for things, much like his opposition against gays in the military, which got him elected, then changed his conciousness later, and does so also for things he knows wont get him into too much trouble, but appears good and seems centrist, but never will be passed legislation, much like an apparition, no substance, but we all saw it
August 7, 2011 5:16:33 AM

I'm confused, Obama supported repealing DADT, and he's since gotten that done.

When was he opposed to gays in the military?

August 7, 2011 6:22:41 AM

Heres a simple "centrist" approach Obama often uses, when its convenient , he often says one thing, and does the other, only to reverse himself once more, and for this, he gets treated as a centrist, mainly by the media planting seeds

The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. "Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute," argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,...
August 7, 2011 11:26:40 AM

What I get from that two year old article is that Obama isn't the domineering tyrant which certain other parts of the media make him out to be.

So...you are arguing what? That he's a conciliatory and tries to persuade? That may not be what some people want, but I'm just not able to work up much ire over it.
August 7, 2011 1:58:19 PM

What I get us, he started as from the left leaning, allowing for DADT, then when he saw himself slipping in his pop polls, became centrist even moreso by including reaffirmation that DADT shouldnt happen, as per the court findings, thus gaining image in certain camps, then once more changing camps and going back to what he originally said.

He flipped twice on this one alone, as he has on many other things, again, when its convenient for him, for his pop polls, and thereby making him look good in all camps, as he covers all sides of all fences, or, someone who pleases no one, achieves nothing, and always heads back to his ideology, left, socialist, with a tad of marxism
August 7, 2011 2:02:35 PM

You can think of it negatively, I think of it as a potential positive, and completely contradictory to how he is often portrayed by his critics...except when they do make that complaint, typically right after complaining how he never listens.

I could get suggesting that he stop doing it, as it might be non-productive, but I don't feel it is a negative trait.

August 7, 2011 2:10:26 PM

Heres one of his critics:

James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. "He's a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar," Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. "This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people," he added. "If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately"
From my link
August 7, 2011 2:15:18 PM

Yes, but you're quoting a two year old article.

Why don't you seek that fellow out today?

Maybe he'd be more understanding. Though you should note how that complaint discredits those who claim Obama is pursuing a radical left-wing Agenda.
August 7, 2011 2:17:33 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
What I get us, he started as from the left leaning, allowing for DADT, then when he saw himself slipping in his pop polls, became centrist even moreso by including reaffirmation that DADT shouldnt happen, as per the court findings, thus gaining image in certain camps, then once more changing camps and going back to what he originally said.

He flipped twice on this one alone, as he has on many other things, again, when its convenient for him, for his pop polls, and thereby making him look good in all camps, as he covers all sides of all fences, or, someone who pleases no one, achieves nothing, and always heads back to his ideology, left, socialist, with a tad of marxism


You are contradicting yourself: if Obama flips on fundamental civil rights issues such as gay rights then he cannot have a fixed ideology, "socialist" or otherwise.
August 7, 2011 2:33:46 PM

As you can see from Politifact and Newsweek, President Obama promised to send 2 more brigades. As the U.S. Army's website shows, a brigade is up to 5,000 troops, which means President Obama specifically promised to send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He in no way promised send 47,000 more troops - or 9 brigades worth of troops - to Afghanistan, which is what he has done between his February escalation of 17,000 troops and now his December escalation of 30,000 more troops. And he in no way promised to send tens of thousands more private military contractors.

Now, sure, if you wanted to be obsequiously propagandistic in your fealty to President Obama, you could argue that he gave himself a two-word out when he made his Afghanistan campaign promise - he said he'd send "at least" two more brigades. So yeah, you could lawyer it to say that technically, he hasn't "broken" a campaign promise - just like Republicans lamely argued that even though Bush in 2000 said he was against nation building, he also said he wanted to protect America, and that latter clause meant his Iraq adventure wasn't breaking the promise in the former clause.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/16306/um-about-obamas-afg...

By comparison, Obama's criticisms of Bush administration policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his determination to make those countries the centerpiece of his foreign policy, are more problematic. Obama's determination to put down the tribal insurgencies in northwestern Pakistan and in southern Afghanistan reveals basic contradictions in his announced policies. His plans certainly have the potential to ruffle Afghan and Pakistani feathers, and have already done so in Pakistan.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/07/23/ob...

For anyone familiar with Obama’s campaign promises and his complete reversal on many of them after becoming President, this shouldn’t be shocking.

This video here sums it up well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga859TrvjiQ&feature=play...
Not surprisingly, the statements from then-candidate Obama were very different from President Obama’s actions regarding the war in Afghanistan. At this point, 9 months into his first term, Obama has done nothing resembling his positions and criticism of President Bush and John McCain’s shared views on Afghanistan.

Theres many many more instances of what he said, what he didnt do, then what he finally did, or hasnt yet.
Hes a popu;arist who heads back to his keynesian roots, slathered with socialism, sprinkled with a tad of marxism, using racism and the haves and have nots as tools.

Hes claimed himself someone to bring people together, then uses ideologies, color and wealth against one another.
August 7, 2011 2:36:19 PM

This is a problem, one for those that dont see it, and also for those that do.

Hes a flippery flop of a man.
The only budget he proposed in all this time, was voted down 97-0
I go with what he told us then, wjhat he told us awhile ago, and what hes saying now.
Hes a jellyfish
August 7, 2011 2:41:08 PM

Oh, by the way, Id refer you back to the OP of this thread is all about....werent we told?
August 7, 2011 2:47:03 PM

Gulli said:
You are contradicting yourself: if Obama flips on fundamental civil rights issues such as gay rights then he cannot have a fixed ideology, "socialist" or otherwise.

Where did I say he always doesnt come back to his roots?
Where did I say, on the many promises hes made, he wont head there as well, when the timing is right?
Hes obviously a populist, willing to say, appear to do, then reversing that, and head back to his original position, knowing peoples minds are short, and is relevant to his overall plans.
The sum is, hes not what he appears, people forget, but looking overall, and not doing what people tend to do, like denying hes not these things, or going back in time, with a summation of his actions, and how he procedes to his ends, hes using those tactics, and it obviously is working
August 7, 2011 2:59:59 PM

He's an empty suit Obama is. Anyone who supports him and his policies is a "Useful Idiot".
August 7, 2011 3:29:44 PM

Kinda contradicts the people who get outraged over him being some sort of dogmatic left-wing Uber-Marxist.

Which of you is correct?

Maybe you're both wrong.

August 7, 2011 3:47:03 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
He's an empty suit Obama is. Anyone who supports him and his policies is a "Useful Idiot".


I fell useful...but Idiot?
August 7, 2011 3:51:35 PM

Yes he is being a bit insulting but I remember calling him a "nut" a couple of weeks ago so I can't exactly complain much ...

He hasn't made any comments about my preference for silk boxers yet though ...
August 7, 2011 3:54:05 PM

I'm more of a cotton guy...
August 7, 2011 10:57:34 PM

^ ...and a Bill Maher link included...

Anyone of us is a Useful Idiot...
August 8, 2011 3:02:32 AM

Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. -- Woodrow Wilson

Freedom means you can do and say what you like. It also means people you don't like can say and do things that you dislike. That's part of the deal. Most people are unclear on this very simple concept. -- J.L.Hudson

When robbery is done in open daylight by sanction of the law, as it is done today, then any act of honor or restitution has to be hidden underground. -- Ragnar Danneskjold speaking to Henry Rearden in Atlas Shrugged

Prof Arkes, I don't disagree with the basic principle, but it's not enough just to say, "Totalitarian regimes are wrong, so don't let the State enslave you". That's like saying, "Don't get sick". The important question is, when do you know it's going to become enslavement? When is the proper time to resist with force?"...... But when you're naked and seventy pounds below your healthy weight, it's too late. You have no chance. On the other hand, no one would support you if you started an armed rebellion because the government posts speed limits on open roads and arrests people for speeding. So when is it not too late, but also not too early? -- Henry Bowman in Unintended Consequences by John Ross, Page 337

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting quotes I've found relating to the original post. Just thought I'd share those as a random afterthought. :) 
August 8, 2011 3:20:49 AM

Political correctness, the very right to be so offended by words to take legal actions.....
August 8, 2011 3:31:25 AM

Political correctness: An accusation that the other guy's criticism of you is bad, but when you do it, well, it's obviously because you're right to suppress them since they really do deserve it.


August 8, 2011 12:21:18 PM

Exactly ... have you met my friend wingding yet?

He is the antithesis of political correctness.

We once practiced pickup lines should we ever meet Oprah ...

For example ...
!