skinsmarydu Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 People who willfully ignore are ignorant. And that applies to every idiot who bought into the conflict in Iraq. Got another one? (I honestly didn't mean that to sound angry, but it makes me that way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Because he actually told the truth & applied WARS WE BORROWED FOR into the FEDERAL BUDGET? How stupid are you? You might need a little accounting lesson. And I thought we were just starting to get a blossom of a relationship. So your claim is the wars monies have NEVER been accounted for and they are floating in the abyss as money never spent? And speaking of trickle down economics which was brought up earlier, what is Obama's economic plan? Trickle up to the rich and business? The top 1% had the fastest rate of growth in history under Obama and businesses have record profits and more cash than god but they wont spend it. That's one hell of a trickle plan when there is no incentive to spend money! Agreed, Bush's wars didn't raise the debt a single dime because he used his accountants and factored the wars out. Pretty nice when you can use accounting to spend trillions of dollars and not add it to the debt in order to look like a fiscal conservative. And yes, people who don't understand how underhanded that was are either stupid or willfully ignorant. You need a lesson in accounting as well. Voting in that tea party candidate in your home state must have blurred your thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Only on ES tailgate has Bush become such a boogieman that he paid for all of his wars out of phantom funds. The debt still hasn't been accounted for. My team is blue and I win. Y'all made my morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 You need a lesson in accounting as well. Voting in that tea party candidate in your home state must have blurred your thoughts Goofballs here in Kentucky don't even know what they voted for with Bevin. But, he's an outsider, and a millionaire, and he prays to the Rightwing god so give that sucker the governor's mansion! But, hey I can only blame 1/6th of Kentuckians since the other 5/6ths voted for the other guy or didn't vote at all. As for your other assertion that Bush didn't seek to hide the costs of the war...well....yeah he did, and he used "emergency Pentagon approprations" that were not accounted for as part of the Pentagon's budget. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/us-public-defrauded-hidden-cost-iraq-war Just one more lie that jackass told Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 You might need a little accounting lesson. And I thought we were just starting to get a blossom of a relationship. So your claim is the wars monies have NEVER been accounted for and they are floating in the abyss as money never spent? And speaking of trickle down economics which was brought up earlier, what is Obama's economic plan? Trickle up to the rich and business? The top 1% had the fastest rate of growth in history under Obama and businesses have record profits and more cash than god but they wont spend it. That's one hell of a trickle plan when there is no incentive to spend money! Since this part of your heavy workday was spent on me, I'll just say, "Good job." You got to keep it all. Why ruin it now? Because you know you'll get more, while the rest of us wonder if we have enough left over to tip our server. And before you say "You shouldn't be eating out", let me remind you that leftovers cooked but not eaten are just as much of a waste. BTW, I can count on one hand the times we've eaten outside our home in the last year. YEAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Since this part of your heavy workday was spent on me, I'll just say, "Good job." You got to keep it all. Why ruin it now? Because you know you'll get more, while the rest of us wonder if we have enough left over to tip our server. And before you say "You shouldn't be eating out", let me remind you that leftovers cooked but not eaten are just as much of a waste. BTW, I can count on one hand the times we've eaten outside our home in the last year. YEAR. Like Warren Buffet, I want to pay more, but my accountant wont let me based on the rules set forth by Obama. And the trickle down wasn't for you, it was for an earlier poster. I was strictly talking accounting for wars. And for the record I tip more than 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 And speaking of trickle down economics which was brought up earlier, what is Obama's economic plan? Trickle up to the rich and business? The top 1% had the fastest rate of growth in history under Obama and businesses have record profits and more cash than god but they wont spend it. That's one hell of a trickle plan when there is no incentive to spend money! You are posting some weak *** stuff this morning. Did you read an article on how to throw out statements devoid of context over the weekend? Cause that's pretty much all you've done in an attempt to deflect from debt driving plans that the GOP is putting out in the form of massive tax cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Like Warren Buffet, I want to pay more, but my accountant wont let me based on the rules set forth by Obama. And the trickle down wasn't for you, it was for an earlier poster. I was strictly talking accounting for wars. And for the record I tip more than 20%. Bull. You can pay forward, for coming years, and you know that. And trickle down is for me. You don't get it. I don't give a **** what percentage you tip...I'm not serving you being that we're 3 states away from each other. Do servers try to tackle each other to get you into their station? I doubt it. It ain't all about the money, money, money. Sometimes it's "So you had that dickhead? What nonsense was he spewing last night?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 You might need a little accounting lesson. And I thought we were just starting to get a blossom of a relationship. So your claim is the wars monies have NEVER been accounted for and they are floating in the abyss as money never spent? Actually I'm pretty sure that their Untrue Talking Point is that W borrowed the money, but hid the debt and claimed it didn't exist. And that then Obama came along, and accounted for all that borrowing that happened, and that the huge increase in the deficit wasn't real, it was just correcting W's fake accounting. It's not true. Yes, the deficit really, truly, did explode in FY09 and 10. Because the economy collapsed. The deficit and debt increase wasn't Obama's fault. (You can try to argue that it wasn;t W's fault, either. Although I think that's a tougher sell. It's one thing to try to claim that the President isn;t responsible for the economy, six months before he takes office. It's something else to try to claim he isn;t responsible after he's been in office for seven and a half years.) But it absolutely did happen. And speaking of trickle down economics which was brought up earlier, what is Obama's economic plan? Trickle up to the rich and business? The top 1% had the fastest rate of growth in history under Obama and businesses have record profits and more cash than god but they wont spend it. That's one hell of a trickle plan when there is no incentive to spend money!Yep. I agree. 1) The economy has (largely) recovered, under Obama. 2) And therefore, if you hate the top 1%, you should vote for the party that's unanimously promised to give them a huge pay raise, and against the Party that's promised to give them a pay cut. That's what I love about Tailgate. The number of people honestly describing reality. The lack of BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Like Warren Buffet, I want to pay more, but my accountant wont let me based on the rules set forth by Obama. So Obama said you can't pay someone more? Did you get a frontal lobotomy over the weekend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Goofballs here in Kentucky don't even know what they voted for with Bevin. Most likely the result of the perceived war on coal. Folk be pissed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 ] That's what I love about Tailgate. The number of people honestly describing reality. The lack of BS. Yep, absolute lack. I tried. I still haven't read any post that says I was wrong. Anyone can finagle it anyway you want, but what I posted was the straight up truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Most likely the result of the perceived war on coal. Folk be pissed More likely the effect that Conway (Attorney General) didn't appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the Federal ruling against same sex marriage laws/amendments. Lots of folks here love the saint from Morehead, KY. In all honesty, Conway is not a great campaigner. He's dull and not very personable. He ran against Rand Paul, ever since taking office at state Attorney General he has lost every campaign he's been in. But, the loss is really just more anti-Obama crap. All they had to do was put an Obama mask on Conway and they were assured a win. Add to that our gubernatorial elections are held in an off-off year and the turn out was abysmal, for some reason all these young millenials can't get off their asses long enough to vote for their governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 for some reason all these young millenials can't get off their asses long enough to vote for their governor.We're dragging everyone. Getting 'em registered. Don't care which side, JUST VOTE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 So Obama said you can't pay someone more? Did you get a frontal lobotomy over the weekend? More like a "bottle in front of me"...amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Dang, this place has gone downhill. Did losing to the Patriots really cause THAT much of a change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 There was a WSJ article (not exactly the bastion of that haughty liberal media) posted here a couple years back that pointed out that W grew the size of government at nearly 7.5%/year - the most of any postwar President, whereas Obama grew the government at about 1% - the least of any postwar President. Granted, Obama started off with a budget that was bloated, but it goes to show how much of the rhetoric from both sides is bs. Under Clinton, federal spending per capita adjusted for inflation actually went down for the first time since Eisenhower. Under George H. Bush, 20,000 pages of regulation were added to the federal registrar, several of which were evaluated to be the most burdensome in terms of cost/lives saved. Having lived in Europe back in the 90s, I am not at all a fan of European socialism. We are currently in the midst of an information revolution that will eventually be seen as radically transformative as the industrial revolution. Instead of stepping up to the plate, we have watered down education standards. Our society glorifies doctors and lawyers, and up until the advent of tech billionaires largely mocked the most needed element of a modern society - engineers. We end up with skyrocketing healthcare costs and litigation. Only now have politicians and public advocates begun to push for more STEM students and programs. The gap between rich and poor is primarily the gap between skilled and unskilled. Nothing the government can do beyond training will be of much consequence. Unfortunately our federal government has a pathetic track record when it comes to training, and most states are too cash strapped or far too beholden to teachers' unions to implement necessary changes. But hey, keep blaming it on your favorite boogeymen, whether it be Mexicans or greedy corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Not really sure if this belongs here, in the ISIS thread, or in it's own thread. But it involves Congress, therefore it's political.Salt Lake Tribune (AP): Congress dodging war-powers vote Really short article. (I'm quoting the whole thing). Washington • In the battle against the Islamic State (IS), members of Congress talk tough against extremism, but many want to run for cover when it comes to voting on new war powers to fight the militants, preferring to let the president own the battle. They might not be able to run for long. The U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Syria is creeping forward, putting more pressure on Congress to vote on a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). It would be the first war vote in Congress in 13 years. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who's a leading force in the Senate for a new authorization, said the reluctance to vote runs deep and that many in Congress prefer to criticize President Barack Obama's policy in Iraq and Syria without either authorizing or stopping the fight. The Hill: Lawmakers urge Ryan to allow ISIS war vote Lots more information in this one: A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is urging newly minted Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to schedule a vote on authorizing U.S. troops to fight Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants. Thirty-five House members — including liberals, GOP leadership allies and members of the conservative Freedom Caucus — banded together in a Friday letter to Ryan asking for a vote. The letter comes a week after President Obama announced plans to send up to 50 special operations troops to Syria to advise opposition militants in the region. It will mark the first time American troops are stationed in Syria since the U.S.-led airstrikes against ISIS began last year. "We do not share the same policy prescriptions for U.S. military engagement in the region, but we do share the belief that it is past time for the Congress to fulfill its obligations under the Constitution and vote on an AUMF that clearly delineates the authority and limits, if any, on U.S. military engagement in Iraq, Syria and the surrounding region," the lawmakers wrote. Me, I'm not really sure if this is enough of a conflict that an AUMF is needed. Although I do think that I'd really rather have Congress involved in this. I'm probably wrong, but I think that;s really the way our Constitutional system is supposed to work. (Even though we seem to have decided that we really don;t need to do that, any more.) (And I assume that the vast majority of Congress will vote on the basis of what they think will be better for their political party, rather than any deep understanding, or even concern, about the conflict itself.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Bull. You can pay forward, for coming years, and you know that. And trickle down is for me. You don't get it. I don't give a **** what percentage you tip...I'm not serving you being that we're 3 states away from each other. Do servers try to tackle each other to get you into their station? I doubt it. It ain't all about the money, money, money. Sometimes it's "So you had that dickhead? What nonsense was he spewing last night?" A little salty today with the name calling :-) It's not all about the money, money, money. The point is it doesn't matter if your blue president is in or your red president is in. The problems aren't improving. Might be time for us to vote in real change? Not the old guard like Hillary? And for the record, my nephew graduates Ga tech with his ceremony early December. Perhaps I can drop by. I am quite charming. Actually I'm pretty sure that their Untrue Talking Point is that W borrowed the money, but hid the debt and claimed it didn't exist. And that then Obama came along, and accounted for all that borrowing that happened, and that the huge increase in the deficit wasn't real, it was just correcting W's fake accounting. 2) And therefore, if you hate the top 1%, you should vote for the party that's unanimously promised to give them a huge pay raise, and against the Party that's promised to give them a pay cut. Uh that's not what they said. With regards to your 1% comment, neither party is doing anything but promising. Obama had a lot of promises, yeah I know he couldn't follow through because the republicans wouldn't let him. So Obama said you can't pay someone more? Did you get a frontal lobotomy over the weekend? I was referring to taxes :-) More like a "bottle in front of me"...amirite? Y'all obviously tipping something back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Me, I'm not really sure if this is enough of a conflict that an AUMF is needed. Although I do think that I'd really rather have Congress involved in this. I'm probably wrong, but I think that;s really the way our Constitutional system is supposed to work. (Even though we seem to have decided that we really don;t need to do that, any more.) one is needed if they are not operating under the one already in force(which is the administrations position I believe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/chris-christie-ben-carson-215637 Christie on Carson scrutiny: 'I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy' Chris Christie does not appear to have much sympathy for Ben Carson after the retired neurosurgeon said that he is most scrutinized candidate in the Republican field, and the New Jersey governor is not the only Republican hopeful who feels that way. In an interview with NBC News' Chris Jansing that aired on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Carson claimed that no other candidate in recent memory has experienced the level of media scrutiny he has felt during his campaign. "You don't think that Bill Clinton or the president with his birth certificate, people who still refuse to believe —" Jansing asked the candidate outside John F. Kennedy International Airport. "No, not like this," Carson said, shaking his head. "Not even close." Christie, appearing on CNN's "New Day" on Monday, pounced on the remarks, invoking the media wringer that he went through during the George Washington Bridge scandal. The trial over the lane closures on the bridge in Fort Lee, New Jersey, is set to begin in April, after four delays. Bridget Kelly, one of Christie's former deputy chiefs of staff and Bill Baroni, a former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, were indicted six months ago on nine charges of fraud, conspiracy and other counts. “Is he kidding?" Christie asked Chris Cuomo, referring to Carson. "Did he watch what I went through in January of 2014 for months and months of relentless attacks from people in the media and in the partisan Democratic Party when it turned out that I did absolutely nothing wrong? I haven’t gotten a note of apology from anybody yet." The governor added, "I’ve got the scars all over my back to prove that a lot of people jumped to conclusions.” Having written a dozen books himself, Mike Huckabee told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that each one of them has faced "incredible scrutiny," something that candidates should expect when they run for elected office. “I think the most surprising thing is — I’m not going to get into arguing what Ben did or didn’t do, but the one thing I heard him say ... I was kind of taken aback when he said that, you know, people are looking into his personal life, and they’re going after him," the former governor of Arkansas told Mika Brzezinski on Monday. "I’m thinking, pal, you ain’t seen nothing yet." In his autobiography "Gifted Hands," Carson recounted a troubled youth in which he tried to attack his mother with a hammer and tried to stab a classmate only to have the knife blade break on the victim's belt buckle. After a CNN investigation failed to unearth any corroboration of these incidents, Carson revised his account, saying the near-stabbing was of a "close relative." “But I will go on record today, and tell you this, Mika," Huckabee joked on Monday. "I never hit my mother with a hammer, and I never stabbed anybody. Never wrote about it either. So there you go, at least I’m out there, on the record for that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/10-reasons-im-only-voting-for-bernie-sanders-and-will-not-support-hillary-clinton_b_8508172.html 10 Reasons I'm Only Voting for Bernie Sanders and Will Not Support Hillary Clinton Therefore, below are 10 reasons I'm only voting for Bernie Sanders in 2016, and will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Trump. 1. The Iraq War. Sanders was on the right side of history. Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq War, using the same intelligence reports as Clinton and Bush. He also foreshadowed the dire consequences of Iraq. In contrast, Hillary Clinton voted for Iraq and now calls her vote a "mistake." In 2005, Senator Clinton even said the "insurgency is failing" after a visit to Iraq. I want President Bernie Sanders, who was recently given the Congressional Award by the VFW and stated on CNN that "I'll be damned" if he sends more Americans back to the Middle East as president. Mass shootings are happening under President Obama, so gun violence can only be solved by Congress, not the president. However, Senators can't send troops abroad unilaterally, but a president can bomb anywhere and deploy troops at will, without Congressional approval. The AUMF gives the president a certain time period to engage in war and send troops anywhere, without Congressional approval. Regardless of her neoconservative outlook on war and foreign policy, certain "Facebook Liberals" who hate Bush but love Hillary also forget that Clinton and Bush aren't very different in terms of foreign policy. As Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The New York Times, "It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her administration." President Obama just sent Americans to Syria, and might even send more American soldiers in the near future. There's no doubt President Hillary Clinton would send more Americans to the Middle East. I'm not certain we need a president who jokes, "We came, we saw, he died," and then helps usher a devastating civil war in Libya with her decision to oust a dictator. You can hear Secretary of State Clinton utter the words in this CBS News segment. 2. The Keystone XL Pipeline. Bernie Sanders has always been against Keystone XL. Keystone XL may threaten water acquirers that irrigate much of the U.S. We know President Sanders will continue President Obama's vetoes of Keystone XL. Clinton was once inclined to support Keystone. She has now evolved, along with a number of other issues. I simply do not trust President Clinton to veto Keystone legislation. 3. Euphemisms. Bernie Sanders never uses euphemisms. I trust Bernie because he speaks clearly; English is a means to communicate, not shield from criticism. Clinton, on the other hand, lives by euphemism and I explain why Orwell would vote for Bernie Sanders in a recent YouTube segment. From a "witch hunt" to wiping a server used out of "convenience" with a "cloth," too many words are used to hide the truth. 4. One candidate is the Charles Darwin of politics. The other is Bernie Sanders. Clinton always evolves; usually following Bernie's lead on issues. I wouldn't sign a contract with an "evolving" clause, nor would I want a president who continually evolves based upon reasons unknown to the average voter. 5. Presidential powers. On war and foreign policy, I want a Democrat, not a Republican. I explain this viewpoint in a recent article. Sanders is the Democrat on foreign policy, while Clinton is another Republican in 2016. 6. The TPP. Sanders has always been against the TPP. Clinton supported it 45 times, but now says she's against it. As POLITIFACT states, "It's up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but we rate Clinton's reversal as a Full Flop." 7. Clinton's 3:00 a.m. ad and Racism. Bernie Sanders has a comprehensive racial justice platform. Clinton's 3:00 a.m. ad in 2008 had a "racist sub-message" according to one Harvard sociologist. 8. I want a Democrat in the White House. I don't want a moderate Republican on Wall Street, or a neocon pertaining to war. 9. The DNC needs to end its fear of being too progressive. I'll only vote for Sanders because progressive politics are mainstream. This isn't 1972 and Nixon is no longer with us, unless you equate Clinton to Richard Nixon. 10. Bernie Sanders is a "once in a lifetime candidate." Clinton represents establishment politics. If you're not voting for Sanders in 2016, don't ever again complain about Wall Street, perpetual wars, or money in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Glad to hear you're a Bernie guy, chip. And here I thought you'd been attacking Hillary, roughly every two hours for the last six months, because she was the leading Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Glad to hear you're a Bernie guy, chip. And here I thought you'd been attacking Hillary, roughly every two hours for the last six months, because she was the leading Democrat. Someone in this thread has to give reporting to Hillary, otherwise the thread was nothing but Trump, now Carson links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Someone in this thread has to give reporting to Hillary, otherwise the thread was nothing but Trump, now Carson links. Sorry. I forgot. You've been attacking her every two hours because of your drive to be neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.