RNC: Voters see GOP as ‘scary’ and ‘out of touch'

Criticism is cheap but governing is difficult.



Amen

Sit there and watch your and your children's rights and liberties erode... I have nothing else to say.

PkrBum wrote:Sit there and watch your and your children's rights and liberties erode... I have nothing else to say.

That's too bad. You're the most intelligent and observant poster on this forum.

The pigs, cows and sheep have already been led into the slaughter pen.

The Animal Farm.

I always enjoy reading Pkr's post. He brings up a lot of good points.

PkrBum wrote:Boards... tax revenues increased during bush 2.

Tax revenue fell when Bush cut taxes.  Tax revenues only began to increase again - as they do every single year in the absence of a recession - when the tax rate was left alone and the cuts stopped.

That republicans have been able to get seemingly smart people like PkrBum to suspend all common sense and buy in to this idea has to be the greatest bamboozle in the history of humanity.

2000 - 2,310.0
2001 - 2,215.3  <---tax cut
2002 - 2,028.6  <---tax cut
2003 - 1,901.1  <---tax cut
2004 - 1,949.5

PkrBum wrote:The dems voted to invade iraq too.

Out of 258 democrats in congress (that took part in the Iraq resolution vote) , 111 voted for the war while 147 voted against.  

Out of 270 republicans in congress (that took part in the Iraq resolution vote) , 263 voted for the war while 7 voted against.

You're not honestly trying to tell me that had we had a democrat president and controlled congress, we would have gone to war in Iraq anyways, are you?  

Think for a second, PkrBum, how different things would be right now if Gore had won the 2000 election.  Think of how different our present day would be in the absence of the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq.  What would our budget look like?  What would world affairs look like?  What would the economy look like?  Hell, what would the skyline of New York look like if we had stayed the course of pursuing terrorists rather than a large scale missile defense system?  Exactly the same?

Are you suggesting that the 9/11 attack would have been canceled had Gore won?

. wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Sit there and watch your and your children's rights and liberties erode... I have nothing else to say.

That's too bad. You're the most intelligent and observant poster on this forum.

The pigs, cows and sheep have already been led into the slaughter pen.

The Animal Farm.

********************************************************

Chrissy I thought YOU were the most intelligent and observant of the sheep!

nochain wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Obama's approval rating has dropped.  We still have a budget crisis and he and Congress aren't doing anything about it.

No doubt about it.

Obstruction is the one card the Repukes continue to play.

Governance is not an option.

Really?  This core infrastructure repair promise that was going to create all these great jobs is the same thing we heard in 2008.  What happened then?

"Obama smiled and interjected, “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.”

Fact is, most recovery money was wasted paying off campaign donors....

    The GOP...scary and out of touch....now what does that make the Democrat Party?....As pointed out the cowh (leader of the Dems) has continued and or expanded several programs of the Bush Admin....And as a bonus we've had the IRS...NSA fiascos..but be calmed the cowh first said the IRS scandal was "unnacceptable" and that "heads were going to roll"....and added that the government is not spying on Americans...feel better?....

Nekochan wrote:Are you suggesting that the 9/11 attack would have been canceled had Gore won?

I'm merely submitting it as a possibility. Pre 9/11, democrats and republicans had vastly different priorities in terms of defense.

PkrBum wrote:

2seaoat wrote:It is easy for him to talk in circles, but when you deal with reality, facts, and actual votes in congress.......he has a difficult time staying on topic.   All government is bad......all government is the same........there are no choices........simple unadulterated crap.  Everyday there are policy choices which work for the better or worse.   Of course if you start with the simpleton premise that all government is bad, then it follows that policies make no difference cognitive dissonance is his rule, and when you try to actually discuss a substantive issue.....he escapes with an over generalization and a paradigm which a fourth grader might embrace for a moment.......but even a fourth grader understands two plus two equals four..........a real standard......a real answer.

Luckily I don't think all govt is bad... the same... nor that there are not choices. There are definable boundaries...

but with moving goal posts and ever expanding scope of govt... we will never get a fair shake... it's you that's naive.

Boards... tax revenues increased during bush 2. The dems voted to invade iraq too. We don't have a single payer... yet... and it wouldn't surprise me if a repub winds up signing that into law. Don't forget... a republican first made that case... and bush 2 signed the last medicare expansion. Clinton cut govt and reformed welfare... Reagan granted immigration amnesty and expanded many social programs... and ushered in the big spending fed govt.

There is a prevailing wind however... a direction... and it sure as hell isn't increased liberties and minimal fed control.

      Didn't Kerry actually vote for it before he was against it?....WOW you mean that there were Democrats that supported/voted for military actions in Iraq!!...

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Boards... tax revenues increased during bush 2.

Tax revenue fell when Bush cut taxes.  Tax revenues only began to increase again - as they do every single year in the absence of a recession - when the tax rate was left alone and the cuts stopped.

That republicans have been able to get seemingly smart people like PkrBum to suspend all common sense and buy in to this idea has to be the greatest bamboozle in the history of humanity.

2000 - 2,310.0
2001 - 2,215.3  <---tax cut
2002 - 2,028.6  <---tax cut
2003 - 1,901.1  <---tax cut
2004 - 1,949.5

2005 - 2153.6
2006 - 2324.1
2007 - 2414.0
2008 - 2288.1

Why do you do that? We've been over this a million times... do you convince yourself of something by manipulating data?

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Are you suggesting that the 9/11 attack would have been canceled had Gore won?

I'm merely submitting it as a possibility.  Pre 9/11, democrats and republicans had vastly different priorities in terms of defense.  

The 9/11 attacks were planned several years before they were committed....while Clinton was president. Also, the WTC was bombed in 1993, when Clinton was president. Several people were murdered in that 1993 attack.

The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31,1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31,1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655,the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued,and will continue to pursue,these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime,while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check,we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21,1998,I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,1999,which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify,work together more effectively,and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic,participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174),the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration,as required by that statute,has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide,crimes against humanity,and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional,discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are,of course,other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly,U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations,I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31,1998.

PkrBum wrote:Why do you do that? We've been over this a million times... do you convince yourself of something by manipulating data?

Senility may be setting in early for you.  Showing me more years of revenue doesn't change the fact that tax revenue fell off while we were cutting taxes.  Nevertheless, let's go back and look at the last two decades.

1993 - 1,511.5
1994 - 1.617.7
1995 - 1,691.4
1996 - 1,775.5
1997 - 1,889.9
1998 - 2,040.9
1999 - 2,136.4
2000 - 2,310.0
2001 - 2,215.3  <--- tax cut
2002 - 2,028.6  <--- tax cut
2003 - 1,901.1  <--- tax cut
2004 - 1,949.5
2005 - 2,153.6
2006 - 2,324.1
2007 - 2,414.0
2008 - 2,288.1  <--- great recession
2009 - 1,899.0  <--- tax cut + great recession
2010 - 1,927.9
2011 - 1,998.7
2012 - 2,093.4
2013 - 2,271.4 (est.)


Damn.  Who would have ever thought that tax revenues go up every year unless we're in a recession or cutting taxes?  Looking back over the last two decades, when are the only times that tax revenue ever goes down?  

Only a republican can be shown that today's tax revenues are less than they were in 2000 - in spite of the fact that our economy is much much bigger with millions more people working - and conclude that the tax cuts that occurred along the way...coughBScough...increased revenue.

PkrBum wrote:The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31,1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31,1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655,the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued,and will continue to pursue,these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime,while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check,we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21,1998,I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,1999,which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify,work together more effectively,and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic,participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174),the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration,as required by that statute,has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide,crimes against humanity,and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional,discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are,of course,other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly,U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations,I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31,1998.

But he didn't invade Iraq, hence the difference between republicans and democrats that, for whatever reason, you don't see.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Why do you do that? We've been over this a million times... do you convince yourself of something by manipulating data?

Senility may be setting in early for you.  Showing me more years of revenue doesn't change the fact that tax revenue fell off while we were cutting taxes.  Nevertheless, let's go back and look at the last two decades.

1993 - 1,511.5
1994 - 1.617.7
1995 - 1,691.4
1996 - 1,775.5
1997 - 1,889.9
1998 - 2,040.9
1999 - 2,136.4
2000 - 2,310.0
2001 - 2,215.3  <--- tax cut
2002 - 2,028.6  <--- tax cut
2003 - 1,901.1  <--- tax cut
2004 - 1,949.5
2005 - 2,153.6
2006 - 2,324.1
2007 - 2,414.0
2008 - 2,288.1  <--- great recession
2009 - 1,899.0  <--- tax cut + great recession
2010 - 1,927.9
2011 - 1,998.7
2012 - 2,093.4
2013 - 2,271.4 (est.)


Damn.  Who would have ever thought that tax revenues go up every year unless we're in a recession or cutting taxes?  Looking back over the last two decades, when are the only times that tax revenue ever goes down?  

Only a republican can be shown that today's tax revenues are less than they were in 2000 - in spite of the fact that our economy is much much bigger with millions more people working - and conclude that the tax cuts that occurred along the way...coughBScough...increased revenue.

The dot com crash and then 9/11 created a downturn. I didn't agree with the policies or interest rate manipulations.

But the important point is stability and the climate that encourages imo... it's just disingenuous to distort context.

PkrBum wrote:But the important point is stability and the climate that encourages imo... it's just disingenuous to distort context.

So does cutting taxes coupled with invading a country (resulting in ballooning deficits) do more to foster or deteriorate stability in your mind? Wouldn't you agree that both occurred because Bush got elected rather than Gore?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:But the important point is stability and the climate that encourages imo... it's just disingenuous to distort context.

So does cutting taxes coupled with invading a country (resulting in ballooning deficits) do more to foster or deteriorate stability in your mind? Wouldn't you agree that both occurred because Bush got elected rather than Gore?

Maybe? lol... but obama doesn't necessarily bolster that supposition. The only one we could be fairly certain of is rp.

PkrBum wrote:Maybe? lol... but obama doesn't necessarily bolster that supposition. The only one we could be fairly certain of is rp.

Imagine if we were having this very discussion in some alternate universe 10 years ago. You may very well have said, in 2003, "Yeah, but Gore isn't doing anything to foster stability", and you would have gone on to say that Bush probably would have done all the same stuff Gore was doing. Obama may not be fostering stability in your mind today, but consider the alternative.

Let's be honest here. Would Gore have, immediately upon taking office, started pounding the idea of a tax cut - particularly for top tier tax brackets? Would Gore have tried to sell the idea of a large scale missile defense system? Would Gore have sold a full on invasion of Iraq? This is Al Gore we are talking about here, PkrBum. Al Gore.

If you answer 'yes' to any of these, you're not being intellectually honest.

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Are you suggesting that the 9/11 attack would have been canceled had Gore won?

I'm merely submitting it as a possibility.  Pre 9/11, democrats and republicans had vastly different priorities in terms of defense.  

The 9/11 attacks were planned several years before they were committed....while Clinton was president.  Also, the WTC was bombed in 1993, when Clinton was president.  Several people were murdered in that 1993 attack.

OMG-are you a Markle clone? He blames 9/11 on Clinton, too.

It happened on George W. Bushes watch while he was reading My Pet Goat to a bunch of school kids down in Florida. That will never bee forgotten....

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Are you suggesting that the 9/11 attack would have been canceled had Gore won?

I'm merely submitting it as a possibility.  Pre 9/11, democrats and republicans had vastly different priorities in terms of defense.  

The 9/11 attacks were planned several years before they were committed....while Clinton was president.  Also, the WTC was bombed in 1993, when Clinton was president.  Several people were murdered in that 1993 attack.

OMG-are you a Markle clone? He blames 9/11 on Clinton, too.

It happened on George W. Bushes watch while he was reading My Pet Goat to a bunch of school kids down in Florida. That will never bee forgotten....

Boards suggested that 911 might not have happened had Gore been elected because Democrats and Republicans had different policies. However, the 911 attacks were in the planning years before Bush took office, and in fact, the WTC was also bombed in 1993. So obviously, there were terrorist attacks and terrorist attacks planned before Bush took office. I do not think it would have made a difference who was president and I believe that terrorists hate the USA no matter what political party is in power.

So no, I don't blame Clinton. I also don't believe in goofy 911 conspiracy theories, like you do.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:[q

It happened on George W. Bushes watch while he was reading My Pet Goat to a bunch of school kids down in Florida. That will never bee forgotten....[/color] [/quote]
Would you rather it had happened while he was getting a B/J from an intern in the oval office? What difference does it make where he was? Where was Oblamer during Benghazi? Or during the Boston bombing? Or during the Ft Hood massacre? What do you expect a President to do to prevent a terrorist incident? It comes down to timely intelligence information and a willingness to act on that information. Not much else can be done and it won't always work when you are dealing with ignorant terrorists who don't care about surviving an attack.

You have devolved into a foolish hyper-partisan, uninformed moron. Wipe the drool off your chin, change your Depends, and have the nurse give you another pill for your obvious dementia.

Sal wrote:Gore would have been more likely to have taken seriously the Clinton administration's assessment that Al Qaeda was the most dangerous threat to the United States.

Condi Rice had apparently never heard of them.

The "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." brief might have received a bit more attention and scrutiny.

Have you ever read the memo or is your knowledge only headline deep? The memo addresses OBLs desire to strike America. Now there is a REAL surprise. That wish of his was a long standing one. More meaningless drivel from the quivering far left loons.

nochain wrote:

Sal wrote:Gore would have been more likely to have taken seriously the Clinton administration's assessment that Al Qaeda was the most dangerous threat to the United States.

Condi Rice had apparently never heard of them.

The "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." brief might have received a bit more attention and scrutiny.

Have you ever read the memo or is your knowledge only headline deep? The memo addresses OBLs desire to strike America. Now there is a REAL surprise. That wish of his was a long standing one. More meaningless drivel from the quivering far left loons.

****************************************************

You didn't tell Sal to change his Depends, he must be out of the home.