Quote of the Decade

You need to look elsewhere, I have never been in the habit of getting cozy with one of the guys! Originally Posted by bigtex

Again, you been spending way too much time in Austin. "cozy"???? OMG.

I was referencing your obsessive pissing contests. And now you are getting sensitive. But I wouldn't want to put any pressure on you to make a decision as to who you will support in 2012. I'll wait to ask you in December 2012 who you support. Kinda like knowing the WMD's didn't exist after they weren't found. Right?

I called your man "Obaminable" before the election of 2008. Good call.

Speaking of TEA sips, how's things at UT?

Bush was almost 3 years ago, BigLouie, let go of your hate. This is now on Obama's shoulders. Originally Posted by Squirrel88

There has been no mention of the content of the post found below! Gee, It seems that Squirrell and LL are somewhat hesitant to discuss it further? Other than LL's condescending attempt to deflect attention, neither has disputed the accuracy of the overall post itself. Perhaps it might be a good idea for us to revisit.


PLEASE NOTE: It is quite obvious that LL has a disturbing tendency to lose focus (perhaps he learned how to "lose focus" from his mentor and/or idol), while being his ornery, egotistical and condescending ol' self. Those traits are quite natural to the LL's of the world! Thus, I will make a couple of small, insignificant modifications in order to soothe his over-inflated "Beta" male ego. This will allow the readers to make an informed, personal decision whether they would prefer to use "dykes" or "dikes!" Unlike LL, it is of little consequence to me whether they choose one and/or the other! As far as I am concerned, they are both acceptable! Should the reader have a strong personal preference, just "ignore" the other word!

That should do the trick! Wasn't that easy?

Hopefully, that will soothe LL's easily ruffled feathers!

Now for the original post (with a couple of slight modifications):

Why change the rules now? Long ago you guys imposed your very own hate filled, 8 year standard for placing blame on a past Administration. Y'all, particularly LL, did not "let go of your hate" of Clinton for the entire time GW was in office. Yet you are now trying your best to absolve Dubya of any blame or responsibility, effective the very moment GW left office. For 8 very long years, when GW sneezed it was automatically Clinton's fault. If it was bad press, it was Bill's fault. And now it is Obama's fault. GW was sure as hell not to blame for any of the problems. Past, present or future! End of sentence!

During GW's 8 years in office we were reminded it was Clinton's fault, ad nauseum. You guys even blamed Bill for Katrina because he did not fix the dykes (and/or dikes, your choice)! It did not matter that GW did absolutely nothing during his first few years in office to fix those very same dykes (and/or dikes, your choice). It was still Bill's fault.

I would not be at all surprised if LL still has his computer's memory filled with far right wing, RNC talking points against Clinton from his years in office.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Hello! You guys can't have it both ways! Either the past Administration is to blame or it is not. The scorekeeper won't let you change the rules in the middle of the game!

Here it is folks, yet another hypocritical double standard being offered up by the Bush Apologist crowd! Do as I say, not as I do!!!!!

It is interesting how this thread regarding a quote from Obama is about Bush ...

... or just about any topic, other than Obama.....according to some who post in here.

I thynk I will go for a byke ryde later on when it is nyght tyme, and cooler.

What is an AA+ rating anyway?

They're all hypocrites imo, but interestingly no quotes about the people who voted to raise the debt ceiling back then and oppose it now, just quotes from the ones who voted against it then, but wanted to raise it now.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...mit-hypocrisy/

some interesting tidbits:

poland lost ALL of it's cabinet members in a plane crash in Russia
Egypt's leader was overthrown
Libya is in the process of being overthrown
Syria is heating up
Obama has no problem beating up on Qidafi but skirts the Syria issue
Take a look at Dearborn, MI videos
Take a look at the increase in hate crimes in America
Look how everyone slams on America but is afraid to point the finger at their own country

Texas is the 3rd largest federal tax contributor to the Federal coffers. Yet, the liberal media gets their panties in a wad when we ask for neccessary aid. Keep in mind, Texas has the BEST economy in the USA right now (almost the best economy in the world).

Nothing is being done about illegal immigration

Eric Holder just got caught with his pants down with the ATF selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, but no one is treating this as a big deal.

The whole Aug 2nd federal budget deadline is bogus, but no media outlet is saying ANYTHING about it.

Social Security checks should never have been considered "part of the federal budget" to begin with. why was obama threatening to stop SS when he could have threatened to stop, oh say, foreign contributions? /sigh

Why doesn't Houston have a space shuttle?

Throwing money at a recession only masks the recession. It's still there. God speed to you all when it hits Texas hard. There's no reason why Texas can't make friends with Mexico and do some drilling there. The richest man in the world is from Mexico.

For the record:

bill clinton, while good for foreign affairs, single handedly gave out a TON of US secrets and foreign aid. yes he saved a LOT of money, but he was also prez during the .com boom. remember when he ordered ATF to go in and take that baby from the immigrant family in Florida? Remember the movie Black Hawk Down? Go look at when it actually happened and look at what other important event took place during his career (look for the name Lewinsky)

i doubted bush jr. he had saudi connections and played hardball politics. he made tough decisions and i respect him for that, but ONLY that. until i have some solid evidence about some other things, i dont' rate bush JR high on the list of great presidents.

i had hope for obama but I can't say i trusted him completely (i didnt' vote that election). i cannot count how many white people would say "well we needed a black president. it was time". hmm ok. with that sort of thinking, technically it should have been a native american indian president.

we are no longer basing our decisions on facts. we are too emotional as a country and are extremely vulnerable to foreign influence. communists have already hijacked the white/black racial tensions. i am glad to hear, however, that a lot of minorities know about this. however, it doesn't lessen the racial fuel out there right now.

... no quotes about the people who voted to raise the debt ceiling back then and oppose it now, just quotes from the ones who voted against it then, but wanted to raise it now... Originally Posted by aquaboy

Do you see a difference between voting "yes" on raising debt ceilings in 2001, and voting "yes" on raising debt ceilings in 2011?

http://freegovreports.com/index.php/...he-last-decade

In the early 2000's the amount of debt to gross national product ratio actually fell below that ratio seen in the mid to late 1990's, which means that the debt ceiling could be increased to meet the deficits that were created from sagging revenues from the econcomic problems that began in early 2000 (with the double whammy of 9/11) without exceeding the ratios of the late 1990s, because the GNP had actually increased as the economy begin to pick up in the early 2000's.

On the other hand the current (2011) debt ceiling to gnp ratio is at about 85% of the gnp.

So not only has the debt ceiling requested doubled, but the ratio of debt to the gnp is going "off the charts" ...

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf

I am surprised the U.S. has a AA+ rating today.

I wouldn't if my debt were 85% of my annual productivity.

I am surprised the U.S. has a AA+ rating today.

I wouldn't if my debt were 85% of my annual productivity. Originally Posted by LexusLover

People have mortgages on their houses that far exceed their salary. Say they have a 300k house and make 150k a year.

The thing to look at is their payment and assets. This country has the ability to get its house in order and has plenty of assets.

We have to raise revenue , cut Defense and change entitlements. Just like Bowles/Simpson recommended.

It is not rocket science. The problem is, when you talk about entitlement programs people like Sara Palin raise their stupid head and shout 'Death Panels'', then when Paul Ryan suggests doing the exact same thing , albeit in a different manner, the other side screams.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

People have mortgages on their houses that far exceed their salary. Say they have a 300k house and make 150k a year.

The thing to look at is their payment and assets. This country has the ability to get its house in order and has plenty of assets.
Originally Posted by WTF

When one makes a comparison to home/private business finances and the government, a long term mortgage secured by real estate ought not to be considered ... as either an asset or a liability .. unless it is "upside down" .... our government does not have a comparable "asset" as a "homestead" ....

the debt in existence at this time is the operational costs and legislated (mandated) obligations balanced with the overall productivity of the U.S., and not just the government "revenues."

For instance: when you pitch for a loan at the bank, unless it is to be secured to the homestead, then the banker has only to look at the mortgage from the standpoint of performance on the debt servicing and how that obligation may impact on the ability to pay back what is going to be borrowed.

My operational expenses and short term account obligations (revolving, open, and credit card accounts) along with my necessary income projections for personal living requirements are the things I wouild consider when looking at the overal productivity in dollars on an annual basis. If I am projecting the 50% to 60% area then that is acceptable. When it projects to the 80% to 85% area, that is not acceptable.

I agree with you that we can "work" our way out of this mess ... "work"!

Handing out borrowed money is not a "plan for recovery"!

Nor is trying to hand out money to one's buddies and socking it to one's enemies ... who are most likely the folks to hire the "buddies," who will then be contributing to the revenues and not a "cost item."

"Blaming" is distracting and a waste of time. Attempting to correct poor judgment and erroneous principles is another matter. IMO this is not a party affiliation problem, and demonizing one group over another is not productive, either.

Some one persuaded this administration that throwing borrowed money at the weak economy would jump start it into a growing-stronger economy. It has not worked. In addition this administration sold the "health care" proposal on the theory that it would "save money" and improve the government's economic condition. That hasn't worked either. And finally this administration is trying to take money from the wealthiest "in this country" and hand it out to the poor ... and that hasn't worked any where in the world.

The wealthiest always end up getting the money back.

Besides: Who is going to create jobs? The poor guy on welfare?

When one makes a comparison to home/private business finances and the government, a long term mortgage secured by real estate ought not to be considered ... as either an asset or a liability .. unless it is "upside down" .... our government does not have a comparable "asset" as a "homestead" ....

? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sure it does. It has minerals, land and the ability to tax.....


We are at the lowest tax rate in decades.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

We need to raise taxes. Like I said Bowels/Simpson had it right.

Also you say not to blame and then in the next paragraph blame the shit out of the present admin.

WTF?

"Blaming" is distracting and a waste of time. Attempting to correct poor judgment and erroneous principles is another matter. IMO this is not a party affiliation problem, and demonizing one group over another is not productive, either.

Some one persuaded this administration that throwing borrowed money at the weak economy would jump start it into a growing-stronger economy. It has not worked. In addition this administration sold the "health care" proposal on the theory that it would "save money" and improve the government's economic condition. That hasn't worked either. And finally this administration is trying to take money from the wealthiest "in this country" and hand it out to the poor ... and that hasn't worked any where in the world.

? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Also you say not to blame and then in the next paragraph blame the shit out of the present admin.

WTF? Originally Posted by WTF

Oftentimes, LL is "guilty of speaking out of both sides of his mouth!" Consistency has never been one his virtues. LL's views normally depends upon which way the wind is blowing.

Same song, different verse!

Also you say not to blame and then in the next paragraph blame the shit out of the present admin.

WTF? Originally Posted by WTF

That is your characterization.

That's like me saying you are blaming someone because we have a low tax rate. BTW: Using our "private enterprise" model, increasing taxes to pay off the inappropriately borrowed money, is like me running out to upgrade my homestead with a higher mortgage during a recession and then increasing my prices for products and services to make the increased payments on the higher mortagage.

It sounds good to raise taxes on "the rich" .. and then redefine who is rich.

And secondly, who creates jobs in this country. "The new rich"! So one is going to increase the costs of doing business on the businesses who add jobs. Not to mention slap them with a "fine" if they don't provide health insurance for them. So now instead of hiring 5 new people they will just hire 3, because they cannot afford the other two with the increased burden that government is going to put on the business to ... "raise tax revenue"?

My point is, and was, spending time and energy blaming is not productive. Spending time evaluating how "we" (the collectively "us" as U.S. citizens) got here today so as not to repeat again is not blaming, and it is productive, if constructive.

Example: I never blamed Clinton for the recession at the end of his administration. Irrespective of some "observers" on here. What I did address is that the recession began before Bush was elected, so those who chose to "blame" Bush for the downturn. The current recession began in 2007-2008 before Obie was elected. I don't "blame" Bush. I will point out the difference in the outgoing Presidents. Clinton denied the existence of the recession to help out Gore. Bush met with Obie to cut the TARP deal (50% by Bush/50% by Obie) and announced to the world on his watch that things were not good and had to be addressed.

I think TARP was not good as it was implemented and did not have the desired results. It just shifted tax dollars around and spent a bunch to keep the life raft afloat for awhile. It's sinking.

That is your characterization.

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Of course it is my characterization.

Laying out the facts as you see them is in fact blame. There is nothing wrong with looking at facts. What we all have a hard time agreeing on are those so called facts and the accompany blame.

Just don't tell me you aren't doing something that in fact you (and i and everyone else that has an opinion is doing) are doing.

You look for facts, the facts find blame and then we try and move on from there.

That is how politics works.

Sure it does. It has minerals, land and the ability to tax.....


We are at the lowest tax rate in decades.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

We need to raise taxes. Like I said Bowels/Simpson had it right.

? Originally Posted by WTF

I noticed you skipped the jest of my contention. The contention that we in fact do have assets. We have the ability to tax those assets and pay off our debt. We may not have citizen informed enough to know this but we have the resources. The rich do not want their (they think the resources are theirs) resources taxed to pay for the military they want. They want to raid the country of it's wealth and then flee to other countries to do the same.

It has always been a struggle between the rich and poor. The rich have gotten the welfare defense supporters on their side is all. They are no different than the poor who support welfare. Welfare is welfare. Transfering wealth is transfering wealth. Some do not seem to understand that. They think transfering wealth to defense contractors is a-ok. I disagree is all.

Just don't tell me you aren't doing something that in fact you (and i and everyone else that has an opinion is doing) are doing.

They think transfering wealth to defense contractors is a-ok. I disagree is all. Originally Posted by WTF

That's not what "everyone else" is doing. Again, that is your characterization of it, so that you can criticize someone else based on your characterization of what they are saying.

As I said, I do not blame Obie for the recession, just like I didn't blame Clinton for the recession. And I don't blame Bush for either one.

Looking for a viable solution by evaluating the choices (those that have been tried and those that have not), and seeking a palatable resolution and decision based on the evaluations .. is not laying blame. I am not seeking to blame anyone. I prefer a positive result from the discourse.

Our philosophies are different, so our approach will be also.

Such as, I happen to believe that a strong, mobile military prevents hostilities, so long as the adversaries know that we will use it without hesitation, use it on their turff effectively, and keep after them until the job is done.

I also happen to believe that people in our society prefer independence and privacy, which they can attain by being able to work at a job that provides them with a decent level of a living standard, as opposed to standing in line to get a check for 1/2 or less of what they could earn and not be subjected to the intrusive questions, visits, and forms that invade their private lives.

I also happen to believe that so long as the atmosphere in this country is favorable to business activity that persons will develop businesses, expand them, and create jobs to provide those persons a decent living standard, the self-respect of self-reliance, and their expectation of privacy. Defense contractors provide jobs, btw, and doing business with the government, whether local, state, or Federal, is not as profitable as some portray it to be in order to demonize "big business" and "defense."

I guess you're right LL. Raising it 19! times in 8 years was fiscally responsible. Its just hilarious to me all the flip flopping that goes on. The ones that voted for it then were against it now and vice versa. I'm sure they did all the math you did each time it came up for a vote (including now)

I guess you're right LL. Raising it 19! times in 8 years was fiscally responsible. Originally Posted by aquaboy

I have to go back and review my posts to determine if I said:

"Raising it 19! times in 8 years was fiscally responsible."

Or do I?