GOP leaders fed up with Rush Limbaugh...

sodbuster wrote:Fact #1 (cited in above post):

Reagan ran up the biggest deficits in history and added more to the National debt than any other President in history (also was the first Pres to raid the Soc Security funds).

After 50 years of democratic destruction neglect, our military was in shambles, under paid and under trained, operating World War 2 Equipment. Did you think we could counter 50 years of piss poor democratic rule without spending money?

sodbuster wrote:Fact #2:

Reagan sent the Marines into Lebanon into a stupid situation where over 200 were killed in one fell swoop.

After which he pulled up stakes and left, leaving the Marine murders unavenged.

He committed troops in support of Israel, something you approve of.

As for his response after the Marine barracks bombings, thank the Tip O'Neil/Bob Byrd US Congress as much as Ronald Reagan for what happened. Reagan authorized bombings of Lebonan, Syria and Iran and was 'pursuaded' to cancel those orders by Congress. His mistake was trusting and listening to democrats when it concerned national defense.

Everyone knows Democrats can't defend anything.

sodbuster wrote:Fact #3

Bush ran up even bigger deficits and national debt than even Reagan.

He also launched a pre-emptive attack against a country that had not attacked us, resulting in over 4,000 young American lives and left us occupying a country halfway around the world who does not want us there.

Letting the real enemy slink away at Tora Bora into the mountains where he still openly taunts us to this day.

Bush should not have gone into Iraq when he did. I've said that for years.

But he went with the approval and consent of Democrats so trying to put it all off on him is about as devious as telling the lie of Tora Bora and the escape of OBL again and again.

"I'll say this because few others that post here have the guts to. The man (and use the term loosely) just elected to the whitehouse is neither a patriot nor does he believe in the greatness of this nation or the ability of its people. The greatest threat to the well being of the United States of America is not the muslim extremists or North Korea, or China, or Russia. The greatest threat to this nation is the democratic party, the republican party leaders who have abandoned their principles, and the blind idiots, like you, that have sold your soul to the democratic party.

Now what do you think of that Sod!!!!"

Yeah Cato that really takes a lot of guts.

To get on an internet forum and post insults.

sodbuster wrote:"When Republicans listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, we nominate George W Bush and Ronald Reagan, who were both elected twice."

Well Sheik surely you are not proud of that.

Reagan ran up bigger deficits and national debt than anyone up to that time.

And then GW Bush went even further and now has the all time record for deficit spending.

Reagan stupidly sent the Marines into harm's way in the mideast and when their barracks was bombed and killed over 200 of them what did he do?

He made a big speech to the nation how he would not cut and run and promptly went on vacation and gave the order to cut and run.

And Bush stupidly got us entangled in Iraq and here we are stuck trying to occupy a country halfway around the world pouring blood and treasure diown a rathole.

Please dont tell me you are proud of that.

Sherm,

I take the above post as a concession. I argued that when Republicans listen to the Limbaughs of the world they win elections (Reagan and Bush II) and when they listen to the "moderates," the media, and Democrats, they run "moderates" and get destroyed (Dole and McCain). Instead of telling me that I was wrong about what wins elections, you went after the presidencies (not the elections) of Reagan and Bush II.

Sherman, the right needs to stop taking electoral advice from the left. I can't say how many times I heard a Democrat tell me they were "worried" about a McCain candidacy, who then was an impotent candidate who refused to stand up for his own principles when the biggest crisis reared its head.

In a similar vein, I read the other day that they are looking into reducing the principal on some loans. That is a slap in my face. I moved out to the middle of nowhere, among other reasons, because I could AFFORD IT. I do not like having 65 mile commutes each way, but I simply could not afford a 200,000 dollar house. Now they are artificially making some of those homes cheaper after the fact, while the foolish borrowing (encouraged by the federal government, which McCain never made much of an issue) raised demand and therefore priced me out of the market. The government is about to reward foolish activity. Growl.

So, Sherm, the Republicans did not listen to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or any other demonized figure on the right. The nomination of John McCain was specifically NOT an example of listening to these individuals. The day the man officially nominated there were many asking whether they should support him on at least a couple of the programs that I listened to.

And rather than try to refute my point, you criticize the Presidencies rather than the ideologies that won the elections. I'm not proud of everything that Bush did (in particular staying in Iraq after Hussein was caught and going back on his pledge not to nation build). I also think he should have told the UN to go fornicate with itself. But that's not the point, is it Sherm?

Well Sheik after 8 years of Bush I doubt if they could have won short of having Jesus Christ at the head of the ticket.

But I believe McCain got more votes than any other announced candidate would have.

Out of the announced candidates can you think of any you think could have won?

sodbuster wrote:"I'll say this because few others that post here have the guts to. The man (and use the term loosely) just elected to the whitehouse is neither a patriot nor does he believe in the greatness of this nation or the ability of its people. The greatest threat to the well being of the United States of America is not the muslim extremists or North Korea, or China, or Russia. The greatest threat to this nation is the democratic party, the republican party leaders who have abandoned their principles, and the blind idiots, like you, that have sold your soul to the democratic party.

Now what do you think of that Sod!!!!"

Yeah Cato that really takes a lot of guts.

To get on an internet forum and post insults.

The truth hurt? Good!!!!!! I hope it burns right to your heart.

Nothing disgusts me more and nothing illustrates the meaning of the word ignorance more than a person that absolutely refuses to look passed their personal bias. And I mean nothing disgusts me more.

Let me give you an example of how facts will never get int he way of your bias. You stated, and I quote, "Reagan ran up the biggest deficits in history and added more to the National debt than any other President in history (also was the first Pres to raid the Soc Security funds)".

First, if you take the time to go back and read what I had written, I never denied that he didn't run the debt up. I also condemned him for it, as I do the democratic congresses that approved and passed his spending.

I did some digging in the US Treasury website. The debt under Reagan went from approximately 9 hundred billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars. That is an increase of 1.9 trillion dollars. Under your buddy, Clinton, the national debt increase by approximately 1.4 trillion dollars. Though not as much as under Reagan, debt still increased, so we know that deficit spending was just as alive and well. I hold in disgust the republican congresses that allowed the deficit spending and the adding to the debt under Clinton, just as I hold Clinton is disgust. Oh, by the way, Bush 2 and the republican congresses up to 2006 and the democratic congress from 2006 to present get the prize for the greatness increase in the National Debt.

You and the many others like you who are so infatuated with government and the democrats who perpetuate it will never look pass your personal bias and entitlement mentality to search out the truth of the matter. I was being kind when I refered to you and others like you as blind idiots. If Byrd, Rockefeller, Mollohan, Rahall, Obama or the pther parasites ever stopped in a hurry, you would have to be taken to the hosptial to get you head out of their butts. Why don't you act like got a pair and learn to stand on your own two feet instead of depending on the political parasites in Charleston and Washington?

CATO

sodbuster wrote:...announced candidate...

That being the key phase.

There are several conservatives who likely would have done better then McCain but chose not to run for reasons only they know.

The fact is, neither party ran a well qualified candidate. A year ago, democrats thought they would be celebrating the first female candidate and anywhere from 2 to 12 years ago, had you told many Africian Americans that Barrack Hussein Obama would be the first non-caucasian (he's only half white) to be President, they would have either laughed or cringed.

What I find amazing among liberals which mirrors your views over the last year. You've went from an ardent John Edwards to a wishing Dennis Kucinich had a legitimate shot, to Hillary to Obama supporter.

Hell, at one point in the primary, you argued with that loon from Ma that those who weren’t voting for Obama were in fact not racist as she claimed and then once the general election rolled around, as you often do, were singing a different tune.

The simple, sad fact is that because we now run 2 year election campaigns and put our candidates under 24 hour media scrutiny, we don't get strong leaders to run for President.

The first black president should have been Colin Powell, not Barrack Obama and there are numerous qualified women who should have been above both Hillary and Sarah Palin.

[b]"The debt under Reagan went from approximately 9 hundred billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars. That is an increase of 1.9 trillion dollars. Under your buddy, Clinton, the national debt increase by approximately 1.4 trillion dollars. Though not as much as under Reagan, debt still increased, so we know that deficit spending was..." blah, blah, blah...

Well Cato what you refuse to recognize is that Clinton inherited record debt and from Reagan.

Also the debt tripled under Reagan and as a percentage was a lot more compared to Clinton than you imply. I am not sure you understand that, but it is true.

Of course the beginning of his term had deficits since the budgets for the first year or two were pretty much fixed, given the economy he inherited.

But by the end of Clinton's Presidency he balanced the budget for the first time in recent history.

And he left Bush with projected budget surpluses for several years.

Which got squandered by your bunch.

(also please note I refuted your argument without resorting to childish antics and calling you a nincompoop, etc.)

"There are several conservatives who likely would have done better then McCain but chose not to run for reasons only they know."

Well Aaron what do you base that conclusion on?

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, who could your side run that had a chance.

The public attitude toward Republicans was, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."

Bush's biggest mistake was that he didn't pay for duel wars and imho, that's something Obama needs to correct now because we know Congress doesn't have the courage to stand up and do what's right.

As for the 90's, what you're not acknowledging under Clinton is the role Congress, led by Newt Gingrich played nor are you recognizing the surprise revenue from the dot com bubble.

Interestingly, I read an article a few weeks back in which an economist predicted this recession because he said we got TOO rich during the 90's and that those unsubstantiated gains had to be offset at some point in some manner.

Housing coupled with arcane accounting rules dictated the time was now.

...please note I refuted your argument without resorting to childish antics and calling you a nincompoop, etc.

Cato was wrong to respond to your post the way that he did. I am struggling not to do the same. You've been particularly partisan and childish yourself.

Have a good weekend. I'll do more good somewhere else.

sodbuster wrote:[b]"The debt under Reagan went from approximately 9 hundred billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars. That is an increase of 1.9 trillion dollars. Under your buddy, Clinton, the national debt increase by approximately 1.4 trillion dollars. Though not as much as under Reagan, debt still increased, so we know that deficit spending was..." blah, blah, blah...

Well Cato what you refuse to recognize is that Clinton inherited record debt and from Reagan.

Also the debt tripled under Reagan and as a percentage was a lot more compared to Clinton than you imply. I am not sure you understand that, but it is true.

Of course the beginning of his term had deficits since the budgets for the first year or two were pretty much fixed, given the economy he inherited.

But by the end of Clinton's Presidency he balanced the budget for the first time in recent history.

And he left Bush with projected budget surpluses for several years.

Which got squandered by your bunch.

(also please note I refuted your argument without resorting to childish antics and calling you a nincompoop, etc.)

You haven't refuted the first thing. All you are managing to do is show how biased you are and how you ignore the facts for the sake of your beloved democratic politicans.

You can tell us how as a percentage Clinton did this and that and the other, but at the end of the day, the debt grew under Clinton as it did under Reagan, Under Bush 1, Under Bush 2, and will under Obama. You talk about Clinton and his surpluses, . Yea right, you still have to deal with the 1.3 trillion dollar debt increase under Clinton. Debt doesn't increase when you have surpluses. None of these people or the members of the congresses that allowed it to happen have even the first excuse for 10.6 trillion dollar debt they each have contributed to.

Have you ever taken the time to learn about the Federal Budget. There are two sides to it, the on-budget side and Off-budget side. On-budget is counted against the deficit off-budget isn't. The surpluses you are so gleeful about never existed. They were nothing more than creative accounting meant to be propaganda. Obviously, you swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Have a nice weekend, OC.

Looks like more bad weather next week.

I am about ready to flip flop my position on this global warming deal.

sodbuster wrote:"There are several conservatives who likely would have done better then McCain but chose not to run for reasons only they know."

Well Aaron what do you base that conclusion on?

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, who could your side run that had a chance.

The public attitude toward Republicans was, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."

My side is America Sodbuster. I vote for who I think will do the best job for America, not what letter they have behind their name. In 7 Presidential elections, I've voted for Democrats 4 times and Republicans 3. I'm anything but partisan.

And I didn't say Republicans could have won, I said they could have done better. Personally, I think between the liberal media and the powers that be, there was no way anyone other then a democrat was going to win. I think that's why not one true conservative with a legitimate chance to win ran, was because they knew that.

What they didn't do was learn from history. In 1990 and early 91, democrats desperately wanted Jay Rockefeller to seek the Presidency but he refused because he didn't believe Bush Sr. (the best President of our time) could be beaten. So democrats chose some no name governor from Arkansas over governors from Virginia and California and Senators from Iowa, Massachusetts and Nebraska and what do you know, by the time election day rolled around, the economy had went in the tank, the war was a distant memory and Americans overlooked Clinton’s shortcomings for a ‘change’.

Well Cato I figured I was not getting my point across about how the budget deficits steadily closed and turned the corner during the Clinton heyday.

And how they immediately did a 180 when Bush came in and have been dropping like a rock ever since.

I wish I knew how to do a graph on here, that would explain it real good.

Maybe bmd or terry rc will get on later and we could have them do a graph and show it better.

And this bunch is going to make Bush look like a penny pincher.

ohio county wrote:

...please note I refuted your argument without resorting to childish antics and calling you a nincompoop, etc.

Cato was wrong to respond to your post the way that he did. I am struggling not to do the same. You've been particularly partisan and childish yourself.

Have a good weekend. I'll do more good somewhere else.

No, Cato wasn't wrong for responding the way he did. Cato is tired.

I have worked my whole life to support my wife and kids. I have put three kids through college. I worked two jobs when our kids were small so my wife could stay home. I have never asked for a stinking thing from the government, be that local, state, or federal. Even when we would have qualified we didn't take it. That is how both my wife and I were raised and how I have raised my kids. We have obeyed the rules and paid for mistakes we have made, hoping to someday reap the rewards of the good decisions we've tried to make.

I get sick to my stomach when we have almost 40% our income taken by the politicans to be given to parasites. When I say parasites, I'm taking about everything from some black, kid factory welfare mommy, to the corporate CEO's, to the lobbyists, to the trash over seas that the politicans send money to in foreign aid.

Over the past several years I have paid more in Federal income tax than it would cost to send one of my kids to college for a year, including tuition and room and board. My kids have borrowed money and I have refinanced our house twice to help our kids through school, while the politicians gave free rides to the illegals and those who whine about how they are entitled this and that. It makes me sick when I have to borrow money to send my kids to college and we are waging a war to liberate a people that hate our guts and int he process we are paying back political favors. I puke when my tax dollars are used to bailout banks and industries to payback political favors.

Now, as my wife and I approach retirement, we have watched our retirement accounts shrink, and yet we are being taxed more than ever. I'm tired and I'm sick of the parasites in office both republicans and democrats that have screwed up the business climate, healthcare, and heavens knows whatelse for the sake of votes. Don't tell me how good one party is and how evil the other is, when fact and history shows clearly just how pathetic both the republicans and democrats really are. The fact is be it Sherman or Keli there is no difference.

Nothing disgusts me more and nothing illustrates the meaning of the word ignorance more than a person that absolutely refuses to look passed their personal bias. And I mean nothing disgusts me more.

And are we to understand that you always look beyond you own personal biases?

ziggy wrote:

Nothing disgusts me more and nothing illustrates the meaning of the word ignorance more than a person that absolutely refuses to look passed their personal bias. And I mean nothing disgusts me more.

And are we to understand that you always look beyond you own personal biases?

I guess you do and nobody else does?

No, of course I don't. But I am honest enough to admit that I have such biases, and that virtually everything I do is affected by those biases. Why can't you and others be honest enough to admit likewise?

ziggy wrote:No, of course I don't. But I am honest enough to admit that I have such biases, and that virtually everything I do is affected by those biases. Why can't you and others be honest enough to admit likewise?

So you admit that you are incapable of examining an issue honestly?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:No, of course I don't. But I am honest enough to admit that I have such biases, and that virtually everything I do is affected by those biases. Why can't you and others be honest enough to admit likewise?

So you admit that you are incapable of examining an issue honestly?

Often I am less that fully objective, yes. We are all biased by a lifetime of actual experiences, as well as by perceptions based on what we hear and read. That is what biases are about- pre-formed notions that are "nourished" by our life experiences. There is nothing wrong with having biases. They are a natural part of all our psyches. But it is wrong to pretend that any one of us is somehow magically exempt from the natural pre-conceptions (biases) we have taken up along the way.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:No, of course I don't. But I am honest enough to admit that I have such biases, and that virtually everything I do is affected by those biases. Why can't you and others be honest enough to admit likewise?

So you admit that you are incapable of examining an issue honestly?

Often I am, yes. We are all biased by a lifetime of actual experiences, as well as by perceptions based on what we hear and read. That is what biases are about- pre-formed notions that are "nourished" by our life experiences. There is nothing wrong with having biases. They are a natural part of all our psyches. But it is wrong to pretend that any one of us is somehow magically exempt from the natural pre-conceptions (biases) we have taken up along the way.

When one is so brainwashed by a group or so loyal to said group that when they are confronted with cold hard fact, they simply ignore it that makes them an idiot.

Let me give you and example, especially since you want to pick at me. At one time I believe that man had no effect what so ever in regard to global climate change. I was convienced of that, but I have since taken the time and expended the money to take a course in climate change as taught by Richard Wolfson, P. hd. Dartmouth. Now, I'm not convienced the world is going to die tomorrow as the Al Gores would have you believe, but I have come to believe that man does have some effect on the climate and that change is taking place. What man's full effect is, I don't think anyone can answer with any amount of accuracy. The reason I took the course was that I got tired of hearing all the differing sides. I wanted to be able to seperate fact from propaganda.

What galls me more than anything else is when a person will sit and argue ignoring fact. Sherman is a fine example. I have no idea whether you have read the all of what I have posted, but I admit Reagan run the debt up. I have never denied it and I condemn Reagan and the congresses of the time for allowing it to happen. Sherman has the unhumilited gall to post how wonderful Clinton was and how he had surpluses, when the fact is the National Debt rose under Clinton and 1.3 Trillion dollars. While Clinton and the congresses under him didn't create as much debt, the fact remains the unbridled spending didn't stop. Don't tell me Clinton was wonderful and Reagan was a boob, when in fact both presidents did exactly the samething. Don't insult my intelligence like that.

sodbuster wrote:Well Cato I figured I was not getting my point across about how the budget deficits steadily closed and turned the corner during the Clinton heyday.

And how they immediately did a 180 when Bush came in and have been dropping like a rock ever since.

Sherman, since you are no longer actve in the SP you should really start telling the truth once in a while.

Leafing through the pages of a Bible every once in a while and quoting or mimicking phrases and sentences out of said ....... just ain't gonna get it, make amends or CYA.

.

Well, whether with a Bible, or with Bibles aside, the Bush II years make even Reagan's fiscal profligacy look like only a mild defecit spending frency, by comparison.

No Cato he admits he has biases and pre-conceived notions.

You do as well.

The difference is he is man enough to admit it.

You, on the other hand, consider anyone who does not agree with you "an idiot".

And you consider poor people "parasites".

But the good book says "blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs shall be the Kingdom of Heaven"