The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'd LOVE a more fiscally responsible government, as someone who is going to have to pay for the fiscal excesses so far throughout my entire life. but illogical "solutions" to that aren't solutions at all.

Sorry but that is just a bad of an answer as the illogical "solutions" you speak of. And I think you know you won't catch me in some "defend Bush" arguement either because he was a complete trainwreck as a president If we don't stop printing money, don't stop spending money and fighting wars without raising taxes to pay for it, we are heading to something a bit more serious than "To big the fail".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Well duh. Most things on there are political editorials. I didn't notice you make that distinction on the poo you posted yesterday.

You're correct. I never tried to pass it off as unbiased journalism, though it should be noted that the quote from the president was direct and unaltered.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Republican spending is no better.

And once again, you fall back on that crutch of an argument that holds no merit. I've repeatedly blasted the spending by Bush in his second term. The argument that one isn't better than the other is a very weak and overly used argument in this forum. I've called out both Republican and Democrat administrations on their spending. I've called out both Republican and Democratic congressman on their wasteful spending (including my own representatives I might add).

It's fine to say you agree with the debt being run up. It's lazy and disingenuous to say 'they did it, so it's no worse than that'.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

+1

The Tea Party movement and Palin both get far more attention than they really deserve. They're somewhat like a kid who makes a scene to draw attention, resulting in the well behaved kid with good grades hardly getting any attention. The focus by detractors on that movement is a critical misjudgement by Democrats. They're focusing on a relatively small portion of the conservative side of the argument.

They'd be far better off to concentrate on reducing the debt in any way possible. More spending bills will continue to get met with frustration by the general public.

When Republican officials stop genuflecting to the teabaggers I'll ignore them, but as long as the elected GOPers follow the lead of the Tea Parties they are well worth watching.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're correct. I never tried to pass it off as unbiased journalism, though it should be noted that the quote from the president was direct and unaltered.

It should also be noted it was an excerpt from an unreleased interview that was being used to get more people to read a biased editorial. But, being the good member of the flock, you passed it on, made some failed reading comprehension evaluations, and went back to policing the interwebs for "democrats are spending my money, Obama is a flip flopping liar" articles to post.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think the tea party thing is just about cutting taxes. It's about the inevitable bankruptcy of the country.

It's too bad that some of the silliness of the people in that movement have led to an overbroad mockery of those of us who just want the government to be more fiscally responsible. To me, smaller government/lower taxes isn't nearly as important as having a government we can afford without destroying the future of the country. If the people insist on a government with ultimate power over everything, by all means, raise taxes to pay for it. Low taxes and a government that prints money out of thin air to promote its idea of how everyone has to live is nice (for some), but it can't be sustained.

The problem with the Tea Baggers is that it's hard to figure out what they are for. Are they about fiscal responsibility or tax cuts no matter what? Maybe they're birthers? Maybe they're anti-immigration? Maybe they're pro-war, but maybe they're anti-war? At the end of the day there doesn't seem to be much that unites them except anger at Obama.

Here's a good article or "article" or article or article or article* by a conservative journalist who attended the convention.

Black Helicopters Over Nashville
Never mind Sarah Palin and the tricornered hats. The tea-party movement is dominated by conspiracist kooks.

By Jonathan Kay | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Feb 9, 2010

The tea-party movement has no leader. But it does have a face: William Temple of Brunswick, Ga. For months, the amiable middle-aged activist has been criss-crossing America, appearing at tea-party events dressed in his trademark three-cornered hat and Revolutionary garb. When journalists interview him (which is often—his outfit draws them in like a magnet), he presents himself as a human bridge between the founders' era and our own. "We fought the British over a 3 percent tea tax. We might as well bring the British back," he told NPR during a recent protest outside the Capitol.

It's a charming act, which makes the tea-party movement seem no more unnerving than the people who spend their weekends reenacting the Civil War. But the 18th-century getups mask something disturbing. After I spent the weekend at the Tea Party National Convention in Nashville, Tenn., it has become clear to me that the movement is dominated by people whose vision of the government is conspiratorial and dangerously detached from reality. It's more John Birch than John Adams.

Like all populists, tea partiers are suspicious of power and influence, and anyone who wields them. Their villain list includes the big banks; bailed-out corporations; James Cameron, whose Avatar is seen as a veiled denunciation of the U.S. military; Republican Party institutional figures they feel ignored by, such as chairman Michael Steele; colleges and universities (the more prestigious, the more evil); TheWashington Post; Anderson Cooper; and even FOX News pundits, such as Bill O'Reilly, who have heaped scorn on the tea-party movement's more militant oddballs.

One of the most bizarre moments of the recent tea-party convention came when blogger Andrew Breitbart delivered a particularly vicious fulmination against the mainstream media, prompting everyone to get up, turn toward the media section at the back of the conference room, and scream, "USA! USA! USA!" But the tea partiers' well-documented obsession with President Obama has hardly been diffused by their knack for finding new enemies.

Steve Malloy, author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life, kicked off the first full day of conference proceedings by warning that Obama and his minions are conspiring to control every aspect of Americans' lives—the colors of their cars, the kind of toilet paper they use, how much time they spend in the shower, the temperature of their homes—all under the guise of U.N. greenhouse-gas-reduction schemes. "Obama isn't a U.S. socialist," Malloy thundered. "He's an international socialist. He envisions a one-world government."

I consider myself a conservative and arrived at this conference as a paid-up, rank-and-file attendee, not one of the bemused New York Times types with a media pass. But I also happen to be writing a book for HarperCollins that focuses on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so I have a pretty good idea where the various screws and nuts can be found in the great toolbox of American political life.

Within a few hours in Nashville, I could tell that what I was hearing wasn't just random rhetorical mortar fire being launched at Obama and his political allies: the salvos followed the established script of New World Order conspiracy theories, which have suffused the dubious right-wing fringes of American politics since the days of the John Birch Society.

This world view's modern-day prophets include Texas radio host Alex Jones, whose documentary, The Obama Deception, claims Obama's candidacy was a plot by the leaders of the New World Order to "con the Amercican people into accepting global slavery"; Christian evangelist Pat Robertson; and the rightward strain of the aforementioned "9/11 Truth" movement. According to this dark vision, America's 21st-century traumas signal the coming of a great political cataclysm, in which a false prophet such as Barack Obama will upend American sovereignty and render the country into a godless, one-world socialist dictatorship run by the United Nations from its offices in Manhattan.

Sure enough, in Nashville, Judge Roy Moore warned, among other things, of "a U.N. guard stationed in every house." On the conference floor, it was taken for granted that Obama was seeking to destroy America's place in the world and sell Israel out to the Arabs for some undefined nefarious purpose. The names Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers popped up all the time, the idea being that they were the real brains behind this presidency, and Obama himself was simply some sort of manchurian candidate.

A software engineer from Clearwater, Fla., told me that Washington, D.C., liberals had engineered the financial crash so they could destroy the value of the U.S. dollar, pay off America's debts with worthless paper, and then create a new currency called the Amero that would be used in a newly created "North American Currency Union" with Canada and Mexico. I rolled my eyes at this one-off kook. But then, hours later, the conference organizers showed a movie to the meeting hall, Generation Zero, whose thesis was only slightly less bizarre: that the financial meltdown was the handiwork of superannuated flower children seeking to destroy capitalism.

And then, of course, there is the double-whopper of all anti-Obama conspiracy theories, the "birther" claim that America's president might actually be an illegal alien who's constitutionally ineligible to occupy the White House. This point was made by birther extraordinaire and Christian warrior Joseph Farah, who told the crowd the circumstances of Obama's birth were more mysterious than those of Jesus Christ. (Apparently comparing Obama to a messiah is only blasphemous if you're doing so in a complimentary vein.) To applause, he declared, "My dream is that if Barack Obama seeks reelection in 2012 that he won't be able to go to any city, any city, any town in America without seeing signs that ask, 'Where's the birth certificate?'"

Many of the tea-party organizers I spoke with at this conference described the event as a critical step in their ascendancy to the status of mainstream political movement. Yet with rare exceptions, such as blogger Breitbart, who was reportedly overheard protesting Farah's birther propaganda, none of them seems to realize how off-putting the toxic fantasies being spewed from the podium were.

Perhaps the most distressing part of all is that few media observers bothered to catalog these bizarre, conspiracist outbursts, and instead fixated on Sarah Palin's Saturday night keynote address. It is as if, in the current overheated political atmosphere, we all simply have come to expect that radicalized conservatives will behave like unhinged paranoiacs when they collect in the same room.

That doesn't say much for the state of the right in America. The tea partiers' tricornered hat is supposed to be a symbol of patriotism and constitutional first principles. But when you take a closer look, all you find is a helmet made of tin foil.

Jonathan Kay is the managing editor for comment at Canada's National Post newspaper. His book, Among the Truthers: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, will be published by HarperCollins in 2011. Contact him at [email protected].

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sorry but that is just a bad of an answer as the illogical "solutions" you speak of. And I think you know you won't catch me in some "defend Bush" arguement either because he was a complete trainwreck as a president If we don't stop printing money, don't stop spending money and fighting wars without raising taxes to pay for it, we are heading to something a bit more serious than "To big the fail".

What???

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're correct. I never tried to pass it off as unbiased journalism, though it should be noted that the quote from the president was direct and unaltered.

FYI - the world "article" doesn't imply unbiased, and neither does anything else I said.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

When Republican officials stop genuflecting to the teabaggers I'll ignore them, but as long as the elected GOPers follow the lead of the Tea Parties they are well worth watching.

Honestly, the GOP has turned the Tea Party goofballs into a political heat shield of sorts. They let the Democrats focus on the Tea Party while quietly riding along a parallel road. It makes the Democrats look even more distracted and off-point while allowing the GOP to continue forth relatively free of criticism. It's a situation that the Democrats have created for themselves by focusing so heavily on Palin and the Tea Party.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'd LOVE a more fiscally responsible government, as someone who is going to have to pay for the fiscal excesses so far throughout my entire life. but illogical "solutions" to that aren't solutions at all.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's fine to say you agree with the debt being run up. It's lazy and disingenuous to say 'they did it, so it's no worse than that'.

Was that bolded part really necessary?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incongruous

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem with the Tea Baggers is that it's hard to figure out what they are for. Are they about fiscal responsibility or tax cuts no matter what? Maybe they're birthers? Maybe they're anti-immigration? Maybe they're pro-war, but maybe they're anti-war? At the end of the day there doesn't seem to be much that unites them except anger at Obama.

Here's a good article or "article" or article or article or article* by a conservative journalist who attended the convention.

You've driven home the exact point many are making. It continues to be puzzling at best why the Democrats waste so much time focusing on this small group of 'kooks' while allowing the GOP to work along with very little criticism. This just in.......the GOP and the disgruntled public opinion about Obama's policies is a far bigger threat to the Democrats than the Tea Party or Sarah Palin.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And once again, you fall back on that crutch of an argument that holds no merit. I've repeatedly blasted the spending by Bush in his second term. The argument that one isn't better than the other is a very weak and overly used argument in this forum. I've called out both Republican and Democrat administrations on their spending. I've called out both Republican and Democratic congressman on their wasteful spending (including my own representatives I might add).

It's fine to say you agree with the debt being run up. It's lazy and disingenuous to say 'they did it, so it's no worse than that'.

and that is untrue. You did NOT call out the Republican spending when they were in office which is why your chastising now draws such ire. You may call them out now (Congressman that is) however you still have given them shoulder room when accepting the tarp dollars even when they railed against it. Its lazy and disingenuous when you faux shock or senstitivty yet you continue to do it without apology.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem with the Tea Baggers is that it's hard to figure out what they are for. Are they about fiscal responsibility or tax cuts no matter what? Maybe they're birthers? Maybe they're anti-immigration? Maybe they're pro-war, but maybe they're anti-war?

I think I touched on this point the other day (different thread maybe?), that "tea party" is pretty much used as a catch-all term at this point & covers an extremely broad range of "most important issue" voters.

At the end of the day there doesn't seem to be much that unites them except anger at Obama.

I'd argue that's more along the lines of "an extreme dislike of liberal policies and/or liberals" moreso than Obama. Stick another equally unqualified figure in the WH & you'd get pretty much the same reaction, point being it just happens to be Obama since he's the guy in the chair.

Here's a good article or "article" or article or article or article* by a allegedly conservative journalist who attended the convention.

Fixed that for you.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Honestly, the GOP has turned the Tea Party goofballs into a political heat shield of sorts. They let the Democrats focus on the Tea Party while quietly riding along a parallel road. It makes the Democrats look even more distracted and off-point while allowing the GOP to continue forth relatively free of criticism. It's a situation that the Democrats have created for themselves by focusing so heavily on Palin and the Tea Party.

your first and last sentence contradict eachother but it is awesome that you spun your own brain into blaming the dems when you start by saying that the GOP have 'turned' meaning to effect. nice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This just in.......the GOP and the disgruntled public opinion about Obama's policies is a far bigger threat to the Democrats than the Tea Party or Sarah Palin.

I'd strongly disagree, at least at this point as far as re-election is concerned.

Right now, if you count Palin outside the GOP at least for the time being (since she's at least vaguely hinted at a possible indy/3rd party run), I don't see a Rep. that could beat the son of a bitch without following the same path Palin has. If they run another weak half-assed candidate like McCain they'll get beat the same way they did last time unless Barry decides to rape a goat on the lawn at Easter. And even then it'd be a toss-up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

your first and last sentence contradict eachother but it is awesome that you spun your own brain into blaming the dems when you start by saying that the GOP have 'turned' meaning to effect. nice.

They aren't contradictory at all. The Democrats created the Tea Party (perhaps it would be better to say they gave the movement some form of legitimacy with their criticisms) and the Republicans are more than happy to use that movement as a heat shield. It's quite simple really.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Depressing analysis from Gregg Easterbrook, perhaps better known to some as the columnist of Tuesday Morning Quarterback:

Great article and thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

how is it that something over 50% of Americans don't pay any federal income tax?? i knew the number was significant, but that's just ridiculous.

100% of people should pay federal income tax.

People like to point to payroll tax (6% to 100K) and sales tax (around 6-7% on purchases) as taxes middle to lower income people pay. So, they do pay some taxes, but the federal income tax burden is extremely skewed. The top 5% reported 26.8% of the income, but paid 43.4% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of tax filers reported 15.1% of the income, but paid only 5.5% of the taxes. Some estimate that the top 50% of tax filers will pay for over 97% of the taxes in the next 5 years. The wealthy also pay payroll tax on their first 100K and pay sales tax - so there is a pretty big tax burden on the rich in this country.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If they run another weak half-assed candidate like McCain they'll get beat the same way they did last time unless Barry decides to rape a goat on the lawn at Easter. And even then it'd be a toss-up.

Oh, I agree with that. I would certainly think it would be a more conservative candidate than McCain.

[cartman]

If Palin ends up with the GOP nomination, I predict that Obama's re-election margin would make Reagan-Mondale look like Bush-Gore or Kennedy-Nixon.

I saw a statistic the other day that mentioned of the times a losing VP candidate ran as a presidential candidate later on, there were 4 wins against 12 losses. All four wins were FDR.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd strongly disagree, at least at this point as far as re-election is concerned.

Right now, if you count Palin outside the GOP at least for the time being (since she's at least vaguely hinted at a possible indy/3rd party run), I don't see a Rep. that could beat the son of a bitch without following the same path Palin has. If they run another weak half-assed candidate like McCain they'll get beat the same way they did last time unless Barry decides to rape a goat on the lawn at Easter. And even then it'd be a toss-up.

Who does the GOP have out there? It's definitely hazy 2 years out on the horizon but the big name still seem to be Romney, Huckabee, and Palin and all have serious warts (but what politician doesn't).

And the Tea Party seems intent on crucifying any moderate candidate who could get broad based support in the general election (like Crist).

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

If Palin ends up with the GOP nomination, I predict that Obama's re-election margin would make Reagan-Mondale look like Bush-Gore or Kennedy-Nixon.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And the Tea Party seems intent on crucifying any moderate candidate who could get broad based support in the general election (like Crist).

SI

But when presented with a moderate GOP vs. Obama, there's little question who they'll vote for (assuming they don't have their own candidate).

[molson]

If this was a different time, Obama might face a real challenge in the Democratic primaries. That probably can't happen today, but how many Democrats wouldn't mind a "do-over" wth Hillary Clinton?

I'd vote for anyone v. Palin, Clinton v. many Republicans, and any remotely moderate Republican v. Obama.

[flere-imsaho]

Oh hell no. You think you're seeing partisan fighting now? Imagine how bad it would be if Clinton was President.

Of course panerd & Bucc would be happy as Washington would have ground to a complete halt.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

So basically he said that the idiots with their big bonuses are fairly savvy businessmen and he doesn't want to impede people's desire to accumulate wealth. Then Wall Street is not the only place where people aren't necessarily paid for performance (baseball, hello Carlos Beltran) and he wants a more transparent system where shareholders get to have a say.

Sounds like a PR nightmare straight from Cheers.

The baseball line struck me as a shitty comparision. If the Yankees overpay for everyone and lose a lot of money, it doesn't put our financial system at risk and cost untold amounts of jobs. To compare these guys positions to baseball players is just absurd.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd strongly disagree, at least at this point as far as re-election is concerned.

Right now, if you count Palin outside the GOP at least for the time being (since she's at least vaguely hinted at a possible indy/3rd party run), I don't see a Rep. that could beat the son of a bitch without following the same path Palin has. If they run another weak half-assed candidate like McCain they'll get beat the same way they did last time unless Barry decides to rape a goat on the lawn at Easter. And even then it'd be a toss-up.

I think someone on the platform of Palin could win, but I don't think she can. Most of the country realizes she's a simpleton and not fit for office. I also think to win, the candidate can't just be an attack dog. They'll have to be really likeable in the process.

The one thing Obama has going for him is time. Just based on time, the economy is bound to turn around by 2012. So if we're down to 7% unemployment and the DOW is at 13,000, he's got more to campaign on. It seems shitty to say but when you come into power under horrible times, you can basically take the credit for any improvements regardless of whether you made it happen or not. He will have improvements to show simple based on the fact it couldn't get much worse.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem with the Tea Baggers is that it's hard to figure out what they are for. Are they about fiscal responsibility or tax cuts no matter what? Maybe they're birthers? Maybe they're anti-immigration? Maybe they're pro-war, but maybe they're anti-war? At the end of the day there doesn't seem to be much that unites them except anger at Obama.

Here's a good article or "article" or article or article or article* by a conservative journalist who attended the convention.

I honestly don't think they stand for anything in particular. It's just a catch-all hate Obama crowd. People who have been riled up by hate mongerers on TV and the radio. You have a mix of small government folks. anti-liberals, racists, and opportunists.

The conspiracy theorist comparision is probably the best. It reminds me a bit of the truthers that ran around over the years holding conventions and protesting for "the truth". Not nearly as big or received the same coverage, but similar.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh hell no. You think you're seeing partisan fighting now? Imagine how bad it would be if Clinton was President.

Of course panerd & Bucc would be happy as Washington would have ground to a complete halt.

You are right that I like gridlock in Washington but that doesn't seem to stop the Replublicrats and Demolicans from spending. Neither Republicans or Democrats ever seem to have any problems wastefully spending money in the wakes of such "crises" as...

2006-10: Banking
2001-5: Terrorism
1999-2000: Dot.com bubble crisis
1990's: Surprisingly no real complaints from me. The cross of Clinton and the Republicans in Congress seemed to actually try and curb spending. (Maybe this is a good sign for the GOP takeover in 2010?)
1986-1991: S & L Crisis
1980's: Inner City Drug Crisis/Communists are coming!
1976-1980: Oil/Energy Crisis
1950-1989: Communism

Weird that we are always in a crisis and Washington always has to spend money. (Raising taxes might effect relections or kill the "two party" spending system) Wish I could live my life that way! Another crisis! I will buy a car on my credit card. I can pay it off down the road but right now I am in a crisis!!!!!! Car broke down. Need to buy a jet. Put it on my card. It's a crisis!!!!!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

If this was a different time, Obama might face a real challenge in the Democratic primaries. That probably can't happen today, but how many Democrats wouldn't mind a "do-over" wth Hillary Clinton?

I'd vote for anyone v. Palin, Clinton v. many Republicans, and any remotely moderate Republican v. Obama.

Almost all of the difference would just be style. Clinton might have been able to get more done, but substantively there just isn't much difference between Obama and Clinton. What do you think she would have done differently?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Almost all of the difference would just be style. Clinton might have been able to get more done, but substantively there just isn't much difference between Obama and Clinton. What do you think she would have done differently?

For one there would be no tea party because they are just racists in disguise so everyone would be happy. Nobody would care about spending if it was a white doing it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

For one there would be no tea party because they are just racists in disguise so everyone would be happy. Nobody would care about spending if it was a white doing it.

Huh?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The one thing Obama has going for him is time. Just based on time, the economy is bound to turn around by 2012. So if we're down to 7% unemployment and the DOW is at 13,000, he's got more to campaign on. It seems shitty to say but when you come into power under horrible times, you can basically take the credit for any improvements regardless of whether you made it happen or not. He will have improvements to show simple based on the fact it couldn't get much worse.

The converse is also true. If he can't fix a mess that he didn't have a hand in creating and only has a limited hand in fixing, he'll be blamed for it.

SI

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by panerd

For one there would be no tea party because they are just racists in disguise so everyone would be happy. Nobody would care about spending if it was a white doing it.

Please tell me you're not serious.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

For one there would be no tea party because they are just racists in disguise so everyone would be happy. Nobody would care about spending if it was a white doing it.

Especially if they had a gun and could keep Nazis at bay.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

You are right that I like gridlock in Washington but that doesn't seem to stop the Replublicrats and Demolicans from spending. Neither Republicans or Democrats ever seem to have any problems wastefully spending money in the wakes of such "crises" as...

2006-10: Banking
2001-5: Terrorism
1999-2000: Dot.com bubble crisis
1990's: Surprisingly no real complaints from me. The cross of Clinton and the Republicans in Congress seemed to actually try and curb spending. (Maybe this is a good sign for the GOP takeover in 2010?)
1986-1991: S & L Crisis
1980's: Inner City Drug Crisis/Communists are coming!
1976-1980: Oil/Energy Crisis
1950-1989: Communism

Weird that we are always in a crisis and Washington always has to spend money. (Raising taxes might effect relections or kill the "two party" spending system) Wish I could live my life that way! Another crisis! I will buy a car on my credit card. I can pay it off down the road but right now I am in a crisis!!!!!! Car broke down. Need to buy a jet. Put it on my card. It's a crisis!!!!!

Overall spending grew during the Clinton years, but higher taxes and a booming economy led to a surplus.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Ready to retire or seeing the writing on the wall? You decide.

So with two more House GOP retirements over the last couple of days that means more than 10% of the House GOP caucus is retiring.

Ready to retire a silly meme or still seeing the writing on the wall? You decide.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So with two more House GOP retirements over the last couple of days that means more than 10% of the House GOP caucus is retiring.

Ready to retire a silly meme or still seeing the writing on the wall? You decide.

Much of that depends on which two retired. They were?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Much of that depends on which two retired. They were?

I don't seem to recall similar qualifiers when it was democrats who were retiring.

[JPhillips]

Diaz-Balart and a guy in MI that I can't recall.

Why does it matter who if they are GOP? Isn't retiring alone enough to know that they must be running scared?

Or maybe, as I said when Dodd et al retired, retirement decisions are more complicated.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't seem to recall similar qualifiers when it was democrats who were retiring.

You don't have to qualify it when you know the scenarios surrounding the retirements. It was clear when those retirements occurred exactly what the motivation was in each situation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You don't have to qualify it when you know the scenarios surrounding the retirements. It was clear when those retirements occurred exactly what the motivation was in each situation.

LMAO

uh huh...suuuuure

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Diaz-Balart and a guy in MI that I can't recall.

Why does it matter who if they are GOP? Isn't retiring alone enough to know that they must be running scared?

Or maybe, as I said when Dodd et al retired, retirement decisions are more complicated.

So you aren't even aware of who you're talking about in one case, but you're willing to suggest that they're 'running scared"?

Your arguments recently have really taken a dive. You can do better than that. Make the argument as to why each of them is "running scared" if you actually believe it. Otherwise, don't suggest it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LMAO

uh huh...suuuuure

So which one of the senators in that scenario do you believe was retiring and never considered how far they were behind in reelection polling numbers? Just curious.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Your arguments recently have really taken a dive.

When you are always looking up from your vantage point, everything appears to be a dive.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

When you are always looking up from your vantage point, everything appears to be a dive.

Ironic this would come from a Texas fan.

[cartman]

Thank you for proving my point.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So you aren't even aware of who you're talking about in one case, but you're willing to suggest that they're 'running scared"?

Your arguments recently have really taken a dive. You can do better than that. Make the argument as to why each of them is "running scared" if you actually believe it. Otherwise, don't suggest it.

*WHOOOOSH*

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

*WHOOOOSH*

Agreed. JPhillips has lost all sense of discussion at this point. He's more interested in being cute than having an actual discussion.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. JPhillips has lost all sense of discussion at this point. He's more interested in being cute than having an actual discussion.

*WHOOOOSH*

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Thank you for proving my point.

You're welcome. Now head on back to the "Spring Football 2010" thread.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Can we just delete the last 50 or so posts and start over?