H.P.: Your request is being processed... Tea Party Federation Expels Mark Williams Over 'Offensive' Response To NAACP's Racism Charge

[ABQCOWBOY]

Can you expand on this with some specific examples or initiatives?

Carter supported a World Banking System. Carter supported Government driven Public Education initiatives. Carter supported expansion of Government and Social Programs initiatives. Carter wanted to reform Social Security, he wanted Energy reform, he wrote, what was the basic foundation used by Obama's healthcare reform strategy. Carter's Presidency ran deficits every year he was in office.

There are many, many similarities in the two IMO.

[greenspandan]

Where the **** were they when Bush started two wars that will cost us trillions of dollars, pushed Medicare Part D through Congress (which will cost $700B over 10 years), bailed out Wall Street, etc?

they were busy calling any dissenters unpatriotic america-haters.

[Hubbs]

Tea Partiers supposedly want DC to be more fiscally conservative and so they loudly complain about Obama. Where the **** were they when Bush started two wars that will cost us trillions of dollars, pushed Medicare Part D through Congress (which will cost $700B over 10 years), bailed out Wall Street, etc?

You're completely right. However, a serious flaw with the messenger doesn't necessarily invalidate the message.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Tea Partiers supposedly want DC to be more fiscally conservative and so they loudly complain about Obama. Where the **** were they when Bush started two wars that will cost us trillions of dollars, pushed Medicare Part D through Congress (which will cost $700B over 10 years), bailed out Wall Street, etc?

They were busy voting for Democrats who they thought would change things. For the record, Bush did not start those Wars. A minor detail I'm sure.

[Hubbs]

They were busy voting for Democrats who they thought would change things. For the record, Bush did not start those Wars. A minor detail I'm sure.

I'll give you Afghanistan, but you'll have to do some 'splainin' about Iraq. Even the initial reason for the invasion - simply that Iraq had WMDs - isn't the same as starting a war. Unless you think we're at war with India and France right now.

[19Skins72]

Sure, which Bush?

Funny but fair =p

Dubya.

If it helps shorten the list, I'm just looking for ways where Bush is significantly more of a fiscal conservative than Obama.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'll give you Afghanistan, but you'll have to do some 'splainin' about Iraq. Even the initial reason for the invasion - simply that Iraq had WMDs - isn't the same as starting a war. Unless you think we're at war with India and France right now.

Sure. The decision to invade was voted on and passed by Congress. Both parties, unanimously, voted for it.

[jpyaks3]

Carter supported a World Banking System. Carter supported Government driven Public Education initiatives. Carter supported expansion of Government and Social Programs initiatives. Carter wanted to reform Social Security, he wanted Energy reform, he wrote, what was the basic foundation used by Obama's healthcare reform strategy. Carter's Presidency ran deficits every year he was in office.

There are many, many similarities in the two IMO.

Bush doesn't support a World Banking System? Which President hasn't supported a World Banking system?

Well at least Bush didn't expand government. Oh wait DHS is an enormous expansion of government.

Bush tried to reform Social Security

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/retirement/stofunion_socsec/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – In the State of the Union address Wednesday evening, President Bush answered some important questions about his plans for Social Security reform and the creation of individual investment accounts. Many issues remain unclear, however.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165030,00.html

Bush Signs Massive Energy Reform Bill

CRAWFORD, Texas — President Bush traveled to the desert state of New Mexico on Monday to sign a piece of legislation he's been seeking from Congress for nearly four-and-a-half years.

The president signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (search) at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. Sandia is a U.S. Department of Energy facility managed by Lockheed Martin that specializes in renewable energy development, like wind and solar power, and infrastructure stability and continuity.

Wait a minute we are talking deficits? Bush ran enormous deficits every single year he was in office?

Every single issue you outlined and compared is equally comparable to Bush. You just chose issues that every modern President has had to grapple and since Carter is a modern President they had to address the same issues.

[addicted]

FWIW, if there was a NAAWP, I wouldn't support that either; even though I believe things like affirmative action are unnecessary and counterproductive.

I would in a heart beat.

The NAACP doesn't get over on one race just to advance black people, they are equal opportunity haters. They hate every race equally. So they get over on the Whites, the Irish, the Chinese, etc. The name says exactly what those fools do:

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

They are there to advance Colored People. Well I say good for them. Way to go, have another convention where you spit racism all over every people and group that's not colored for the advancement of colored people.

The problem I have with the NAACP is how the media makes it seem as if having a NAAWP would be a terrible thing to have. If it's ok to have the NAACP why in the hell aint it ok to have the NAAWP? Don't give me that bullspit about salvery or unequal rights. We have all been wronged at some time or another as a people. White people were slaves too. I wasn't no slave owner and I don't feel guilty for it.

So why can't we have a NAAWP? If that's wrong then an NAACP has to be wrong. No if there was a NAAWP I would join it. As long as they equally hated Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc with the same degree that the NAACP hates these groups then I'd be fine with it. However if they took it too far and talked about lynching or burning babies I'm out. The truth to me is that if it's ok for an NAACP then it's ok for an NAAWP. Start it up, send me an invite. Thanks

[twa]

W was not a fiscal con,nor ever was to any large degree.

His and Congresses lack of restraint built the base of the Tea Party(fiscal cons had been mutinying years before O but were suppressed by the Neo's and So-cons,the def cons were split) and W's last 2 yrs and then O blew the lid off it.

[DjTj]

Carter supported a World Banking System. Carter supported Government driven Public Education initiatives. Carter supported expansion of Government and Social Programs initiatives. Carter wanted to reform Social Security, he wanted Energy reform, he wrote, what was the basic foundation used by Obama's healthcare reform strategy. Carter's Presidency ran deficits every year he was in office.

There are many, many similarities in the two IMO.

Didn't Bush (and almost every President since World War II) support most of those things?

No Child Left Behind: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010803484.html

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001076.html

Social Security Reform: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39791-2004Dec31.html

Energy Reform: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/08/AR2005080800124.html

:whoknows:

[jpyaks3]

Attempting to marginalize Israel and reaching out to Syria,Iran ect.

Or you can go to his South American policies embracing the leftists,both guided by the thought you can work with them.

I would say Reagan reached out more to Iran than Carter did. Carter ran a military attempt to rescue the hostages while Reagan was embroiled in that whole Iran-Contra incident.

I wouldn't say Obama has been marginalizing Israel, I will say he has moved away from rubber stamping our approval of every Israeli action that was practiced by the Bush administration but I would argue that it was more of a movement back to normalcy.

I think Obama is changing American foreign policy but I don't think Carter is an apt description. I think its just a movement away from the cowboy international politics of the Bush Administration.

[19Skins72]

W was not a fiscal con,nor ever was to any large degree.

I agree. I'm just curious if ABQ feels differently - and if so, why.

[addicted]

In the TV media, it's Fox on one side, and everybody else on the other. Meaning ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and the majority of network tv's "entertainment" lineup.

No question that Fox is, by far, more overt in their bias. I would argue that...

a) They have to be, in order to stack up against the overwhelming disadvantage they deal with, in terms of total airtime controlled by those leaning left.

That their, over the top, hit you in the head with a bat approach, is less damaging than the overall tactics of the others. Which is to put enough poison in your food each day, to kill you slowly, while remaining undetectable. With an occasional bat to the ole noggin as well. MSNBC being the most consistently mirror image of the Fox approach.

Oh please

R. Murdock is a savvy business man. He pushes that Republican speech because he knows it sells. If the idiots running these media outlets knew what was good for them they would voice a third or fourth opinion instead of voicing the same stupid message over and over again they all do. People want a choice. But the clowns running these propaganda machines don't care about news ratings, they care more about pushing agendas that keep them in power and keep the cash cow producing. Fox was just doing the smart thing voicing the Republican voice. Someone had to do it

Me? I watch them all. My extraordinary built in BS detector enables me to ward off any dangerous side effects from any of them. Too bad that so few have that ability.

Me I don't watch any of them, they are all just brain washing tools used to tell you what they want you to know and believe. Good luck with watching all that crap, you might as well watch wrestling, to me that's more honest. At least you know it's fake pretending to be real

[DjTj]

W was not a fiscal con,nor ever was to any large degree.

His and Congresses lack of restraint built the base of the Tea Party(fiscal cons had been mutinying years before O but were suppressed by the Neo's and So-cons,the def cons were split) and W's last 2 yrs and then O blew the lid off it.

But the important point is that it's not really about anything that Obama did or didn't do; it is the internal dynamics of the Republican Party that really determines how loud the Tea Party can be. When the Republicans are in power, fiscal conservatism and limits on federal power are an inconvenience, so the neo-cons and the so-cons and the def cons try to push the fiscal cons and the libertarians to the side. When the Republicans are out of power, everyone can all unite in opposition to Obama, but it will revert back to big-government conservatism when the Republicans are in control again.

Democrats do the same thing. Obama rode the support of a lot of civil libertarians and anti-war activists to the White House, but it's not so easy to close Gitmo or finish off Aghanistan now that he is in control.

Any platform based on opposing or limiting the government is going to fall apart once you become the government. The same thing has been happening from Jefferson through Reagan...

[Madison Redskin]

The problem I have with the NAACP is how the media makes it seem as if having a NAAWP would be a terrible thing to have.

You have a problem with the NAACP because of what the media does or does not do? Brilliant. Also, there are and have been NAAWPs around for hundreds of years ... hence the income gap between whites and blacks, incarceration rates for black men, etc.

Now, I am sure you will scoff at the notion that history or society have anything whatsoever to do with the current state of African Americans. If that's the case, what explains the difference between whites and blacks when it comes to jobs, jails, drugs, etc.? If you don't think it has to do with "nurture" (i.e., history and society) are you saying it comes down to their "nature?"

[ABQCOWBOY]

Funny but fair =p

Dubya.

If it helps shorten the list, I'm just looking for ways where Bush is significantly more of a fiscal conservative than Obama.

I suppose that is a subjective question. The term, significantly, is different to everybody. However, I will say this. If you simply look at the numbers involved, you have to come to the conclusion that President Obama, is by far, the lest fiscally conservative President in the history of our Nation. If you look at the numbers, GWB's administration created approximately 4.2 Trillion in Debt. Now, much of that was because of the War, 800 Billion is because of TARP but if you take an honest approach to this, I think you have to say that the War was unavoidable. You can argue the merits of Iraq but it was passed unanimously. You have to say, I think, that much of the 800 Billion was driven by Congress as opposed to the President. He only originally wanted 400 Billion, not 800 and almost half was not spent by his administration. This may all sound like excuse and if it does, well, so be it. I was never in favor of much of the free spending GWB's administration conducted but in comparison, That number is nowhere near what President Obama's spending increases represent. That number, which is credited to GWB is over 8 years. President Obama has already spent 2.6 Billion in less then 2 years. That number will grow and far exceed Bush. If you look at it from the perspective of GDP%, the GWB administration was responsible for 3% of our total GDP, per year, to debt, by the end of his administration. President Obama's administration has taken that number up considerably, effectively tripling that number. It's not that GWB was a Fiscal Conservative. He spent a lot of money. He was just nowhere near as free spending as the current President is and that is a sad statement to make IMO.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Bush doesn't support a World Banking System? Which President hasn't supported a World Banking system?

Well at least Bush didn't expand government. Oh wait DHS is an enormous expansion of government.

Bush tried to reform Social Security

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/retirement/stofunion_socsec/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – In the State of the Union address Wednesday evening, President Bush answered some important questions about his plans for Social Security reform and the creation of individual investment accounts. Many issues remain unclear, however.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165030,00.html

Bush Signs Massive Energy Reform Bill

CRAWFORD, Texas — President Bush traveled to the desert state of New Mexico on Monday to sign a piece of legislation he's been seeking from Congress for nearly four-and-a-half years.

The president signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (search) at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. Sandia is a U.S. Department of Energy facility managed by Lockheed Martin that specializes in renewable energy development, like wind and solar power, and infrastructure stability and continuity.

Wait a minute we are talking deficits? Bush ran enormous deficits every single year he was in office?

Every single issue you outlined and compared is equally comparable to Bush. You just chose issues that every modern President has had to grapple and since Carter is a modern President they had to address the same issues.

This is all great, but my post was about Carter, not Bush.

[addicted]

But the important point is that it's not really about anything that Obama did or didn't do; it is the internal dynamics of the Republican Party that really determines how loud the Tea Party can be.

When exactly did it become ok that the Republican party rename themselves to the Tea Party? The Tea Party should kick all of those Republican loudmouth nut riders out of it's group. Otherwise the Tea Party = Republican Party and that was never ever the intent and the Tea Party loses it's appeal. Most Tea Partiers aren't Republicans but when you got the Fox idiots backing it, it losses steam.

For that matter why aren't you card carrying Republican party people worried about this? Obviously the Democrats are positioning the attitude to be Tea Party = Republicans....Tea Party = Racists...Therefore Republican Party is Racist. It's obvious and not a half bad attack. The Dems weaken both groups at the same time.

Of course if your a crazy mofo like I am and think that both parties are the same wanting the same thing and politics are all bullspit then of course this is a great way to lose the 2012 election keeping the corporations in power (you can call them Dems if you want) that exist now. It's believeable to me but hey I don't know anything. Just saying

[jpyaks3]

This is all great, but my post was about Carter, not Bush.

But my point is that every single President has to deal with those issues and Obama is not significantly different from Carter or from Bush if you want to frame it in vague terms and overarching goals.

[ABQCOWBOY]

When exactly did it become ok that the Republican party rename themselves to the Tea Party? The Tea Party should kick all of those Republican loudmouth nut riders out of it's group. Otherwise the Tea Party = Republican Party and that was never ever the intent and the Tea Party loses it's appeal. Most Tea Partiers aren't Republicans but when you got the Fox idiots backing it, it losses steam.

For that matter why aren't you card carrying Republican party people worried about this? Obviously the Democrats are positioning the attitude to be Tea Party = Republicans....Tea Party = Racists...Therefore Republican Party is Racist. It's obvious and not a half bad attack. The Dems weaken both groups at the same time.

Of course if your a crazy mofo like I am and think that both parties are the same wanting the same thing and politics are all bullspit then of course this is a great way to lose the 2012 election keeping the corporations in power (you can call them Dems if you want) that exist now. It's believeable to me but hey I don't know anything. Just saying

The problem with this, as I see it, is that Americans don't identify with Racisam in election years nearly as much as they do pocketbooks. So long as our economy is where it is, the Democrats are at a distinct disadvantage IMO. The race card strategy is not going to work. At least, I don't think it will.

[Henry]

Sure. The decision to invade was voted on and passed by Congress. Both parties, unanimously, voted for it.

Are you suggesting both parties unanimously voted in favor of invading Iraq? because that's incredibly wrong.

The invasion of Iraq was absolutely GWB's baby. He sold it to the American public and pushed it through Congress. The most you can say about Democrats at the time is that they ranged from opposition to lukewarm support of Bush's policy. House Democrats voted against the use of force in Iraq 82-126. In the Senate they voted for it 29-21.

But there is no way you can say with a straight face that the Democrats were pushing for a war in Iraq. At best some of them didn't oppose the idea. An idea which was completely George Bush Jr.'s

[ABQCOWBOY]

But my point is that every single President has to deal with those issues and Obama is not significantly different from Carter or from Bush if you want to frame it in vague terms and overarching goals.

I don't agree. GWB is very different from the perspective of ideology. Carter and Obama are exactly the same except that Carter was unable to force change. Obama has been very succesful there but the two men share almost exactly the same ideology.

[19Skins72]

ABQ - don't worry, I don't think O is a fiscal conservative. My problem is, neither was Dubya (imho.) If you don't account for inflation or percentages, you are probably 100% correct for claiming that O has spent more money than any other president in our history...however that would also put Dubya in the solid #2 spot

So why didn't the TP complain during the Bush years? Racism? No. Hypocrisy? Yes.

[addicted]

You have a problem with the NAACP because of what the media does or does not do? Brilliant.

The media are brainwashing all of us. So yea, I have a problem with how they treat racism and racist issues because they aren't fair with it. If they were they would ask this question, instead they pretend they are scared of black people and the reprecussions they bring if you don't agree with them. What other 13% of the population has as much power to sway the media like blacks do? It's brillant strategy and attacking styles. My hats off to them

Also, there are and have been NAAWPs around for hundreds of years

Really? Show me, show all of us the NAAWP groups that have been around forever. I want you to. That's a lie.

... hence the income gap between whites and blacks, incarceration rates for black men, etc.

Oh please. The NAAWP you made up is the reason blacks are in jail? Dude I am completely nuts but this is even too much for me. Again if I'm wrong then show it. You've made a serious error connecting a made up group with blacks in prison.

Now, I am sure you will scoff at the notion that history or society have anything whatsoever to do with the current state of African Americans. If that's the case, what explains the difference between whites and blacks when it comes to jobs, jails, drugs, etc.? If you don't think it has to do with "nurture" (i.e., history and society) are you saying it comes down to their "nature?"

No I don't buy into that bullspit, nature nuture is crap. You can't simply tell how much that affects anyone person let alone every person who was born with more pigmentation then another. I can't even tell for myself which has had more effects on my own life, they both do. But that's not the point at all.

Man controls the direction his feet move.

In other words in your infinite wisdom over there supporting NAACP and all that, where does personal decisions and choices come into play? I get that not everything is in our own control but if you take control of yourself and make decisions that are smart is there anything out there that will stop you from advancing yourself if you work for it? Are we still living in the days when people couldn't attend college because of the color of their skin?