Chicago Loses, Conservatives Rejoice

By The Pajama Pundit | Related entries in Chicago, News, Partisan Nonsense, Tweets


Something has been bugging me all weekend.

I’ve never been to Chicago. From what friends and family have told me, The Windy City is indeed a great place. There is lots to see and do.

But you wouldn’t be told that if you asked any number of right-wing-talking-heads. To these folks, Chicago is a cesspool of corruption, filth and slime.

Michelle Malkin:

Goodbye, “Yes We Can.” Hello, “No, You Can’t.” Like Icarus, President Obama’s giddy ego flight has ended with melted wax and fallen wings.

Laura Ingraham:

R-I-O! May this be the first of many defeats for Chicago-style politics!

Jon Henke (whom I normally associate with being a reasonable conservative) tweeted:


Rush Limbaugh:

The worst day of Obama’s presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama.

Erick Erickson:

So Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him.

So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O.

… and he also tweeted:


Wow. We get it everyone, you don’t like Barack Obama. That is painfully clear now. But rooting for Chicago to lose its bid to host the Olympics? Really?

Maybe you guys don’t like Chicago. Maybe you visited Chicago as a youngster and the strong winds blew your balloon out of your hands. Maybe in your young adult years, you visited Second City and were made to cry instead of laugh. Maybe you loathed The Blues Brothers. Whatever the reason you don’t like Chicago, surely it has to be more than ‘well, that’s where Barack Obama is from’, right?

You see, this notion that because Barack Obama is from Chicago his political opponents must actively root for that city to lose its Olympic bid is nothing short of asinine. Why? So that you can say something negative about the President?

It’s no secret that I was no fan of George W. Bush. I didn’t like 95% of his presidency and even more of his policies. However, if the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was considering Crawford, Texas as a potential site for the Summer Games, I would be all for it. I would support that consideration not because I liked the former President, but because that city is on American soil. It’s called patriotism.

In my view, the largest fallacy of the anti-Chicago-hosting-the-Olympics movement is the financial issue. The vast majority of the Chicago naysayers are free-market, pro-capitalism conservatives. That in itself is a contradictory stance. To be anti-Olympics-coming-to-a-city (any city, not just Chicago) is essentially the same as denying that city thousands of new jobs and millions (billions?) of dollars in revenue generated by tourism. What city wouldn’t want those things?

Lastly, let me say this; I am not saying that these people are unAmerican. They have every right to speak their mind on any issue they choose. To claim that a dissenting opinion is unAmerican or unpatriotic is dangerous and irresponsible — and I won’t do that.

However, what I will say is that this posturing makes absolutely no sense to me. I cannot understand why someone wouldn’t want the United States to host an Olympic games. If the criticism was directed at President Obama for traveling to Copenhagen to make his ‘sales pitch’, then I would understand. But that is definitely not the case (see: Erickson’s tweet). These critics wanted Chicago to fail — and fail it did.

Now it is Rio de Janeiro that will get the jobs and potential economic growth.


This entry was posted on Monday, October 5th, 2009 and is filed under Chicago, News, Partisan Nonsense, Tweets. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

85 Responses to “Chicago Loses, Conservatives Rejoice”

  1. Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » Chicago Loses, Conservatives Rejoice -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mr. Meta. Mr. Meta said: DONKLEPHANT: Chicago Loses, Conservatives Rejoice http://ow.ly/15T2gF [...]

  2. michael reynolds Says:

    It’s not about Chicago, they want anything and everything to fail so long as it hurts Obama. Hatred and rage are the primary emotions of this new “Republican Party.” Even greed is taking a back seat. And they rarely even check in with arrogance anymore.

    I’ve said this for some time now and been called out by people who think moderation or centrism are ends in themselves: it’s not about issues, it’s not about policy, it’s not about anything Obama has actually done. It’s about racism and resentment and the panic of those who believe “their” America is changing. And of course about the ruthless exploitation of those raw emotions.

    The GOP as we knew it is dead. It’s gone. This new beast still calls itself the GOP but it isn’t.

    It’s Invasion Of The Partysnatchers.

  3. rob Says:

    I’ve never been to Chicago. From what friends and family have told me, The Windy City is indeed a great place. There is lots to see and do.

    But you wouldn’t be told that if you asked any number of right-wing-talking-heads. To these folks, Chicago is a cesspool of corruption, filth and slime.

    Been there several times, have family in Evanston and Addison and to be honest, it’s a fair bit of both.

  4. Chris Says:

    Chicago is a huge city with alot of problems, much like other huge cities. But I find it amusing that they’re claiming that it’s corruption that caused the city not to get picked…

    Did SLC have outstanding morals when they bribed their way into the Olympics? Or perhaps japan, which reportedly was in the millions of dollars?

  5. rob Says:

    I think it’s just kind of sad, but funny that chicago got outplayed in the graft-game by rio.

    Perhaps they should’ve consulted with Utah’s reps?

  6. blackout Says:

    Obama Derangement Syndrome. Completely unsurprising.

    Captcha: honolulu If. Maybe they pitched the wrong hometown!

  7. michael reynolds Says:

    I’m starting to think that with only modest effort we could found a religion based on Captchas. Cryptic messages that can mean many things to many people? And from an inscrutable source with unknown powers?

    Captcha: fairleigh candidly

    Hmmm. Profound.

  8. gerryf Says:

    You might not say it, PP, but I will: these people are unAmerican.

    You are far too kind. It is American to take a principled stand on an issue. That is not what is happening.

    Presently, if Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America. That is not principled; this is the behavior of an adolescent bully who just found out he cannot get his way and doesn’t know how to react.

    It would be one thing if this were just about the Olympics–pathetic, but ultimately we would all survive. Instead, this is spilling over into other areas. Healthcare. Financial reform. Budgets.

    For the longest time, I could never figure out why the right HATED Clinton so much. When you get right down to it, Clinton was fiscally conservative (more fiscally conservative than Reagan, Bush I and Bush II), and mostly socially centrist. He should have been more than palatable to the right.

    I used to be a right leaning centrist but the right’s behavior during the Clinton years drove me away. Bush II only confirmed what I already was pretty certain of: the “conservatives” think that they are the masters of the universe and there is some sort of God given right to be the rulers and anyone who gets in the way be damned.

    We are not seeing the right acting on principle; we are seeing the right grabbing at issues as a potential weapons with which to beat the current administration. I don’t necessarily agree with Mike Reynolds that racism is the driving force for many on the right (but I have seen enough of it first hand to know it plays a part), but I do believe that the right has an almost tangible rage towards anyone who attains power they think belongs to them and they will do anything to defeat that person.

    What we are seeing is the irrational response created by that rage.

  9. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    The citizens who commute to work everyday on I94 are also rejoicing.

  10. kranky kritter Says:

    I agree wholeheartedly that partisan derangement syndrome is idiotic. That’s exactly how it works. You MUST interpret every action in the least favorable light. You must enjoy every failure that the object of the derangement suffers. Frankly, it’s insane. And I believe we’ve seen an uninterrupted skein of this malady at least since Reagan was elected. Only the object and the folks afflicted have changed. The severity may have waxed and waned, but it’s never left us.

    In my view, the largest fallacy of the anti-Chicago-hosting-the-Olympics movement is the financial issue. The vast majority of the Chicago naysayers are free-market, pro-capitalism conservatives. That in itself is a contradictory stance. To be anti-Olympics-coming-to-a-city (any city, not just Chicago) is essentially the same as denying that city thousands of new jobs and millions (billions?) of dollars in revenue generated by tourism. What city wouldn’t want those things?

    I missed the part where you explained the fallacy you claim, Justin. Montreal hadn’t paid off its debts for hosting the 1972 winter olympics as of 2000.

    Olympics are the same sort of stimulus as the fed govt’s package. Borrow now to finance a big spending spree, pay later. It’s undeniable that many local Chicago businesses would have profited from the Olympics, and that many folks would have gotten jobs from it. And it’s just as undeniable that when the games were over, all that would be left would be a mountain of red ink.

    It’s legitimate to ask whether or not the benefits from say foreign visitors (and other foreign capital that flows in) is greater than the local resources expended. Also, cities that host Olympics incur huge opportunity costs for all the money and labor that they don’t devote to other important things.

    One can find hosts of dueling economists on the matter. So I find it quite FAR from a settled issue. Liberal-leaning economists always say it’s a great deal. Conservative dissenters are usually drowned out because whenever such a scheme is hatched, the business community always LEAPS onto the bandwagon. The better to get a good spot at the giant trough to come.

  11. Alistair Says:

    gerryf Says:

    I agree with you and and if it was the other way around these loons would have called Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz un-American.

  12. Chris Says:

    People who commute on I94 hate their lives anyway because of the infinite construction.

  13. kranky kritter Says:

    Clinton never said boo about “fiscal conservatism” until he got elected and saw which way the wind was blowing. I was there. That’s the absolute truth.

    The GOP blew into congressional control on the wings of the gimmicky contract with America, and Clinton grabbed a baton and ran to the front of the line and yelled parade.

    What he was was a very adept politician. I give him a ton of credit for that. While personally a very venal character, he was a really good President, because he understood that he was practicing the art of the possible. His near-total lack of serious idealism was probably his best quality.

  14. Doomed Says:

    Republicans want Obama to fail. Whats wrong with that? You all wanted George W. Bush to fail. You wanted Iraq to fail. You wanted them to fail in everything they ever tried.

    You know you did. You know you did.

    And if you didn’t well then this message is not for you. Just like those people that were quoted do not speak for all Republicans.

  15. gerryf Says:

    Doomed,

    Nonsense, revisionist history. You simply cannot find any correlaries to what you are seeing now.

    Kranky, if you were there, you simply were not paying attention.

    Clinton began his presidency pledging to reduce the federal government’s budget deficit; streamline bureaucracy; increase public investment in education, job training, and the environment; and initiate widespread domestic reforms in health care, welfare, and taxation.

    You may recall the initiative was called “Reinventing Government.”

    Even Alan Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years, praised Clinton’s mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president’s 1993 economic plan “an act of political courage”.

    You’ve bought into the Right’s mythology that Gingrich and his pals strong armed Clinton into being fiscally conserviative–the same group of scoundrels who spent money like drunk sailors at every opportunity when Clinton wasn’t in power.

    The proof is in results.

    Clinton with Republican controlled congress=economic prosperity and reduced budget deficits.

    Clinton with Republican controlled congress=economic foolishness and exer expanding budget deficits.

  16. michael reynolds Says:

    Republicans want Obama to fail. Whats wrong with that? You all wanted George W. Bush to fail. You wanted Iraq to fail. You wanted them to fail in everything they ever tried.

    That’s bull. After 9-11 Bush was polling at 93% When there was a crisis we Democrats got behind the President of the United States. And we hoped he would succeed because we love our country.

    Now we have a financial crisis (in large part created by Republicans) and a war in Afghanistan (neglected by Republicans) and without so much as pausing for breath the GOP has launched into full psycho hate mode, spitting out paranoid theories and spreading every lie they can think of.

    There is something deeply sick at the heart of this wrecked GOP. Sick and vile and un-American. No: that’s not how we behaved. It’s how you behave.

  17. Doomed Says:

    :::I would be all for it. I would support that consideration not because I liked the former President, but because that city is on American soil. It’s called patriotism.:::

    I do not define patriotism for you. Why are you defining patriotism for me?

    Once again the meme that all Republicans hate Americans, want them to hurry up and die and now were unpatriotic because your definition says we are.

    Gee and here I thought I just didnt like Obama. I didnt realize all this stuff about myself till you informed me of my shortcummings.

    Seems us poor Republicans just cant do nothing right. We hate everyone except the top 1 percent of the richest people. We stay up late nights figuring out ways to make Michael Moore, Bill Gates, Al Gore, John Kerry, The kennedy Family and George Soros happy. Perhaps we can cut their taxes some more.

    That is after we self flagulate for being Unpatriotic now too.

  18. Doomed Says:

    That’s bull. After 9-11 Bush was polling at 93% When there was a crisis we Democrats got behind the President of the United States. And we hoped he would succeed because we love our country.

    Loosing the 2016 Olympic bid is now a crisis of equal proportions as 911?

    There is something deeply sick at the heart of this wrecked GOP. Sick and vile and un-American. No: that’s not how we behaved. It’s how you behave.

    Oh let me add Un-American to the list of hateful things the left thinks about Republicans.

  19. Jim S Says:

    Every post, in every way, Doomed proves his critics correct. I can’t say why someone needs to define things for him without violating the blog’s rules but I think most people reading his rants understand it.

  20. michael reynolds Says:

    Doomed:

    Don’t try to dodge. You accused Democrats of wishing Bush would fail. That’s a lie. And I explicitly compared 9-11 to the crises we now face, and you know it, and you dodged to avoid dealing with it, which is another lie.

  21. Doomed Says:

    MR

    But we are not talking about 911. This post is about how Conservatives Rejoiced over Obama getting the smack down.

    Your conflating two arguments. 911 does not equate to losing the Olympics and a recession is not a crisis on the magnitude of 911. It is serious hardship for sure but it most certainly is not an Alinskyite Crisis.

    As for Afghanistan well We have been in Afghanistan for 8 years now. Most Republicans want America to succeed there from what I can tell.

  22. michael reynolds Says:

    Doomed:

    Actually, you are the one who conflated the Olympics and Iraq. You, not me.

    FYI: I am a liberal, and a Democrat, and not only did I support the invasion of Iraq, I was pushing hard for “the surge” at a point where loud mouthed super-patriot Republicans were calling me weak, stupid and un-American for doing so.

    The GOP is on a hate spree. All hate, all the time. This is just the latest evidence of the mass psychosis.

  23. Doomed Says:

    And if you didn’t well then this message is not for you. Just like those people that were quoted do not speak for all Republicans.

    That is what I wrote about Iraq. I always make qualifiers because I do not believe in “All Hate. All the time.”

  24. Doomed Says:

    Well Im going to bed now. But as I said the op quoted some of the far right talking heads who rejoiced in Obama’s smack down.

    The Op then conflates a smack down as being unpatirotic.

    Pure drivel and mindless rhetoric designed for one purpose. Too keep the partisan fires stoked and raging.

    Mindless drivel. Michelle Malakin does not speak for me. Nor does Ann Coulter. I wonder. Does Howard Dean speak for you.

    “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.” Howard Dean.

  25. rachel Says:

    Republicans want Obama to fail. Whats wrong with that? You all wanted George W. Bush to fail.

    Nobody had to want Bush to fail; wiser Americans just thought he would because–as the old adage goes–character is destiny. W. proved them right beyond their wildest nightmares.

  26. TerenceC Says:

    I’ve traveled quite a bit throughout the world and managed to see quite a few large cities here, in Europe, Africa, the Middle-East, Asia. Chicago is a great city by any standards. It is clean, safe, vibrant, with a diversified economy, beautiful lake front, great restaurants, and tons of things to do culturally. It would have been a great host for the Olympics. This was America’s loss however, not Obama’s – and for those who rejoice at Obamas defeat on this issue – all I can say is “get a life” – there are far more important things the President is working on. Is this all you got – what a joke for an opposition party – tell me something substantial – give me some new ideas, bloviate on something constructive, or just shut up please?

  27. gerryf Says:

    Doomed,

    On one hand you are saying the Republicans are not unAmerica as if they are not rooting against Chicago as if for some principled reason, and then clearly state in the next sentence.

    “,,,as I said the op quoted some of the far right talking heads who rejoiced in Obama’s smack down.”

    They were not rejoicing because as some people claimed at the beginning the Olympics are a bad deal that always lose money (this was hilarious coming from a party who only a year ago had a candidate for president in Mitt Romney who was CEO of the 2002 Olympics–an Olmpics which cleared $100 million in profic).

    They are actively rooting against an AMERICAN CITY getting the Olympics that would bring thousands of jobs in a down economy. They are actively rooting for a president to fail. They are actively rooting against an Olympic bid that in January, then still President Bush actively supported.

    How is it “pro-American” to do any of these things?

    And then you come back with a Howard Dean quote as if it justifies your hatred and irrationality.

    Never use the actions of others to justify your own. This is not free speech. This is spite and immaturity. Your party is lost in the wilderness. I hoped the Republicans would lose in the last election and lose big. I hoped this because the people who had taken control of the GOP had become petulent and unredeemable. I hoped the defeat would lead to a GOP revival so that new, principled conservatives could take a front seat the mean-spirited, nasty crowd that had taken over the party.

    I’ll say one thing about your moniker–if this is all your party has left, then it truly is doomed.

  28. Doomed Says:

    Gerryf

    Unpatriotic.

    UnAmerican.

    All Hate, All the Time

    Doomed.

    Loud Mouthed Super Patriot Americans.

    Deeply sick at the heart of the GOP.

    mean spirited nasty crowd

    This is just the hate thrown at me on one post for daring to speak up against the party of tolerance. I always tell my friends on the left…You really should look in a mirror some day.

  29. Agnostick Says:

    Jon Stewart summed it up nicely: Conservatives hate Obama, more than they love America.

    I guess my only reservation would be that certain, false Neoconservatives are the ones that really hate Obama. That’s just my opinion.

    Agnostick
    [email protected]

  30. Agnostick Says:

    Doomed…

    Is there some way I can help, maybe? Can I call 911 for you? Sounds like somebody has a gun to your head, and is forcing you to visit Donklephant, read all the hate and vitriol, and post here.

    Good luck with your armed intruders.

    Agnostick
    [email protected]

  31. blackoutyears Says:

    At the risk of seeming to defend Doomed (heaven forfend), there was plenty of irrational hatred toward W. during his two terms. I disagree that any but a handful of truly dim lefties were rooting for W. to fail, but to deny that there was a great deal of schadenfreude at his expense during that second term would be dishonest.

    By far the most compelling clip I saw re the Obama/Olympics snafu was the one several outlets ran of the Americans For Prosperity meeting where they cheered the news of Chicago’s receiving the least votes of the final four cities. These aren’t the unwashed masses at Tea Parties or wingnuts (at least ostensibly), these are the people who are supposed to be the fiscal hawks, the responsible conservatives. Doomed, instead of fighting a frothy little one-man war against the assembled liberal might here, you might acknowledge that the GOP currently finds itself in a position where everyone from leadership (Boehner) to punditry (Coulter, Fux and Friends) and grassroots leaders on fiscal responsibility and opportunity (AFP) are openly rooting against a President. Instead of saying *But they did it to my guy!* just own up to it.

  32. Agnostick Says:

    The only other time I can remember this much hoopla over the Olympics, from a political perspective, was when President Carter declared that the United States would boycott the 1980 Moscow Summer Games.

    I wonder, though, what sort of political poop was flung about by partisan monkeys of Olympics past?

    Where was all this attention when New York City lost its Olympic bid in 2005? Were “liberals” cheering in the streets and sticking pins in their “George Dubyah” voodoo dolls, specifically over the bid for the 2012 games? I know that politics were the last thing on my mind–I’ve loved the Olympics ever since childhood, and would have loved to see the games come to the “Big Apple.”

    What kind of crap did Bill Clinton have to put up with when Salt Lake City won its bid in 1995?

    What kind of crap did George H.W. Bush have to put up with when Atlanta won its bid in 1990?

    This page details the IOC vote history, as far as site selection. (I found this site referenced several times on Wikipedia.)

    I haven’t heard anyone bring it up yet–but had Chicago won, would we have seen a dedicated campaign to derail the games, financially, as happened with Denver and the 1976 Winter Olympics?

    Last of all, I have yet to hear anyone from either side of our American Olympic athletes. Right now, there are pre-teen gymnasts, swimmers, runners, archers, even marksmen… putting in their time and dedication to their sport, hoping for a shot at Olympic gold? Of course, these kids will be happy to be representing their nation anywhere on the globe; it could even be argued that a foreign country might be a more educational, enriching experience for them.

    I have to wonder, though, what some of these youngsters would think if they found out that their Uncle Hank or Aunt Marge were rooting against America… while they were working for the privilege of wearing that uniform?

    Agnostick
    [email protected]

  33. kranky kritter Says:

    Gerry

    Bah! I was there, and I was paying attention. 1993 was after the election. The handwriting was already on the wall for the GOP surge, it had already begun. I was there.

    I was there, and I noticed this angle well before the GOP started to trumpet it. I don’t “buy into” spin, because I watch and see for myself. None of Clinton’s fiscally conservative ideas were things that he came up with or led the way on early. None. Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

    Clinton was smart enough to read polls and pay attention to what people wanted.I was there, and I know for certain that welfare reform was an idea SCREAMED by conservatives for a decade or more before the idea passed Clinton’s lips.

    Clinton did a great job of remaining relevant with the other party controlling congress, and he did a good job of getting some things done in the environment he found himself in. He played the hand he was dealt, and that’s why I liked him so much as a President, despite his personal shortcomings.

  34. kranky kritter Says:

    “Reinventing Government” stole liberally from the republican ideas that had been showing popular appeal at the time. Period. I was a liberal at the time, and I remember how horrified liberals were by this development. Ask 100 historians. My account is correct.

    It’s just pathetic to me that 20+ years later uninformed democratic defenders want to just place these ideas in Clinton’s win column as though he led the way instead of acceding to obvious trends. These developments were absolutely NOT a win for democratic party ideals over conservatism. They were a victory for level-headed compromise by a democrat willing to cut a deal with conservatives because they were on the rise.

    The biggest irony in all this selective memory loss by partisan democrats is that via their revisionism, they utterly miss what SHOULD be the most important political lesson. Clinton saved the democratic party by co-opting the GOP. IF he had dug in his heels and opposed them, he would have been swarmed under and not been re-elected.

  35. kranky kritter Says:

    By the way Justin, I agree wholeheartedly that partisan derangement syndrome is idiotic. That’s exactly how it works. You MUST interpret every action in the least favorable light. You must enjoy every failure that the object of the derangement suffers. Frankly, it’s insane. And I believe we’ve seen an uninterrupted skein of this malady at least since Reagan was elected. Only the object and the folks afflicted have changed. The severity may have waxed and waned, but it’s never left us.

    I tried to make this point much earlier, but my comment got caught in the moderation queue.

  36. kranky kritter Says:

    The olympics are the same sort of stimulus as the fed govt’s package. Borrow now to finance a big spending spree, pay later. It’s undeniable that many local Chicago businesses would have profited from the Olympics, and that many folks would have gotten jobs from it. And it’s just as undeniable that when the games were over, all that would be left would be a mountain of red ink.

    It’s legitimate to ask whether or not the benefits from say foreign visitors (and other foreign capital that flows in) is greater than the local resources expended. Also, cities that host Olympics incur huge opportunity costs for all the money and labor that they don’t devote to other important things.

    One can find hosts of dueling economists on the matter. So I find it quite FAR from a settled issue. Liberal-leaning economists always say it’s a great deal.
    Conservative dissenters are usually drowned out because whenever such a scheme is hatched, the business community always LEAPS onto the bandwagon. The better to get a good spot at the giant trough to come.

  37. mike mcEachran Says:

    Blackoutyears @: “At the risk of seeming to defend Doomed (heaven forfend), there was plenty of irrational hatred toward W. during his two terms.”

    This bugs me everytime i read it: ‘well, people hated Bush, too.’ No. People hated the fact that an obvious dimwit (sorry, but pleeeaasse – he was a dimwit!) ran our military into an unneccessary war, killing 4000 of our troops, and countless hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis – all because of some deep seeded Shakespearean father-son rivalry, and a lust for oil and contracts for Halliburton. This is a far cry from hating someone because he’s on the other team. I’m so sick of revisionist history, and false equivalency. The current GOP hate-mongering is gross, unacceptable, based on irrational fears, based a blatant lust for power, and very very telling. The hate speach thrown at Bush was in defense of people’s lives. Excuse me, but it was another animal altogether, and we should never allow it to be forgotten.

  38. Doomed Says:

    you might acknowledge that the GOP currently finds itself in a position where everyone from leadership (Boehner) to punditry (Coulter, Fux and Friends) and grassroots leaders on fiscal responsibility and opportunity (AFP) are openly rooting against a President. Instead of saying *But they did it to my guy!* just own up to it

    Lord…….this is EXACTLY what I said the only problem is they wanted to pull out Saul Alinsky and demand I apologize for daring infer that this is exactly what they did to W.

  39. Doomed Says:

    “George Dubyah”

    voodoo dolls,

    he was a dimwit!)

    The hate speach thrown at Bush was in defense of people’s lives. E

    read all the hate and vitriol, and post here.

    end of quotes.

    Just more smorgasbord of the rational party of tolerance.

    I came here and made a simple point that anyone who was a rational observer of the last 8 years would realize was the truth.

    Democrats wanted W to fail. It goes back to the stolen election of 2000 and its not stopped since. The GOP is just doing to the Left what the left did to the right. I did not defend it. I only said whats wrong with that? Why would any political party want the other party to succeed?

    Seriously. But you guys are doing the exact same thing to the right that you all accused the right doing to you….Flinging around the unamerican and unpatriotic card over and over for all things political. Anything Obama does is for the good of the country therefore we are all unpatriotic traitors for not wanting it to succeed.

    Good luck with that one…Its driving moderates farther and farther away from your party each day.

    Sorry you guys are so consumed with anger that you cant see this.

    Thanks Kranky Kritter. You seem to be the only rational person commenting at this site with the exception of Blackoutyears whom most likely will come under attack shortly if he dares appear moderate beyond one post.

    Just look in the mirror and read the anger in each others posts and then continue to wonder why the other side is angry back.

  40. michael reynolds Says:

    People despised Bush primarily for what he did. For stem cells, for Supreme Court noms, for kowtowing to religious nuts, for exploding the deficit, but most of all for the mismanaged wars.

    On top of that there was a contempt for his arrogance and lack of communications skills.

    But so far Obama has not actually done anything deserving contempt. He’s basically followed the Bush policy on rescuing the economy. He’s tossed health care to Congress. He’s kept up Predator attacks in Pakistan and sent additional troops to Afghanistan. He’s followed the Bush SOFA deal in Iraq. If you look at the things he’s actually done he is by any rational definition, a moderate.

    The hatred of Obama is not about what he’s done. That is exactly the opposite of the dislike of Mr. Bush.

    There is no equivalency. This is not about policy. It’s about rage and hatred for their own sakes. The emotion predates the excuse.

  41. Doomed Says:

    There is no equivalency. This is not about policy. It’s about rage and hatred for their own sakes. The emotion predates the excuse.

    A lot of it was not about policy. A lot of it is.

    But then a lot of the pure unadulterated hate at Bush was not about policy either….It was about an arrogant SOB that stole the election and they were going to make him pay.

    But my objection to this POST was that the author attributed to the Right a desire to be unamerican, and Unpatriotic for being happy that Obama failed in his bid to bring the olympics to Chicago.

    He is after all the first president to do so. His arrogance knows no boundaries….according to the right….opps thats what you said you despised Bush for.

    Perhaps their is a blurring of what is policy and what is personal by both sides.

  42. mike mcEachran Says:

    Doomed: false equivalency.

    I am angry at what Bush did.
    GOP is angry at who Obama is: a Dem (and for some – that he’s black. I’m related to some of these people who say it out loud, so don’t pretend this isn’t true.).

    Period.

    PS: I am a conservative at heart, and I am angry that the GOP has tarnished conservative values with hate (granted the party has a rather long history of it going back to the LBJ). I am angry that the GOP is a party of conservative “talk” and liberal “do”. I am angry that the GOP is unwilling to have an honest debate about most anything, and panders to some of this country’s scariest elements. I am angry that the party is willing to sacrifice the country’s best interest for the best interest of anyone with enough money to pay for access. These are things that the GOP “does” that anger and frighten me. I am tired of the double standard, and the hyperbole. The glaring inadequacies of the GOP policies must be called out – sorry if the message sometimes comes from a shrill voice like mine. I’d gladly temper my anger if there were glimmers of prudence and tollerance coming from the right, but there is not much. It’s time the GOP had a revolution – hurry up, cuz your current arguments have worn so thin, that it would laghable if it hadn’t hurt so many people. Sorry for the rant. :)

  43. Doomed Says:

    Mike

    My equivalency was quoting Michael Reynolds.

    I didnt say that….Im not sure how you guys quote people around here.

    MR said he was angry at Bush for his arrogance. Republicans are mad at Obama for his arrogance.

    As for the Moderation of Obama. He wants you to think hes moderate when in fact he is far from moderate on 3 huge items of legislation that will affect America for generations to come.

    Healthcare take over by the US government

    Cap and Trade which will bankrupt America in the face of a huge recession that will still be raging when Cap and Tax is passed.

    Illegal Immigration which will then add tremendously to the deficitis as we have to pay for their health care because these illegals almost all will fall under the 4x rate of poverty guidelines for federal subsidies.

    As for the whackos in the GOP….I think both parties have their share. But if your referring to the religious whackos lets not forget about the Rev. Wright.

    If your referring to the KKK then lets not forget about the Black Panthers.

    If your referring to Anne Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, then lets not forget about Randy Rhoades, Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz, Rachael Maddow, Michael Moore.

    If your referring to honest debate then why is the Democrats laughing at Americans about how the public option is a sneaky way to get single payer in the future?

    If your talking about the best interests of the party over the country then how do you account for Acorn scandal. The 30 year prison term of Hsu….I mean I could go on and on and on.

    The problem is not the parties. The problem is the people who support their parties.. They turn a blind eye to their own demons while screaming “Demon!” at the other parties demons.

  44. blackoutyears Says:

    I don’t buy the false equivalency talk. I agree with Doomed to the degree that the 2000 election fiasco had libs slandering Bush mercilessly before he’d even had a chance to make a boo-boo. I heard similar talk from my GOP friends after this election. There is a lot of adamantine objection on both sides from day one.

    KK can keep making the point but apparently people don’t get it. These people ARE mad about what Obama’s doing, or intends to do, or what they perceive him to be doing (plenty of disinformation and received opinion helps) as much as they’re against the man. He seeks to expand government. That’s empirical. They’re completely opposed to that, rightly or wrongly, and we’ll conveniently ignore the cognitive dissonance resulting from the GOP’s own federal expansion. This opposition may be mindless, but much of it would be there for any Dem holding office and pursuing similar goals. Obama, being *special* (thanks, MSM), has garnered even more ad hominem attacks than usual. But then considering the unironic assertions in this thread alone by libs that Bush is an arrogant moron who can barely speak, there’s no shortage of those on the left. I just survived eight years of liberal Bush Is A Moron conversation enders, so please don’t insult my intelligence. Yeah, I know, it’s different because you’re *right*.
    Apparently it’s okay to hate Bush for his SCOTUS nominees, blockage of stem cell research and embrace of religious leaders and programs — all of which are articles of faith and ideology for him and those who voted for him — because you disagree with him. If the argument boils down to hating Bush is okay because he was wrong and screwed up but hating Obama isn’t because he and, by extension (conveniently) you, are *right* then you guys are hopeless. Like others, I’m having an increasingly hard time locating the moderate thought around here, and an even harder time finding any tolerance from our two major parties toward each other. You might want to start making that more of a mission, Justin. At this point I’m not sure how this can be called a moderate forum with a straight face.

    @KK I’m not sure if this carousel wasn’t spinning long before Reagan. I think any opinion on that is likely a function of age and the nature of media in a given era. Cable. Internet. More information and seemingly less knowledge. Can you imagine Watergate if we’d had the internet? JFK’s assassination (and the almost certain extra-marital scandal[s])? Vietnam?

  45. blackoutyears Says:

    @Doomed, you can’t seriously be comparing the Panthers to the KKK. Unless of course you’re TRYING to destroy what little credibility you had.

  46. gerryf Says:

    Hello pot, this is the kettle.

    You are doing all of that, and you are misconstruing everything anyone has ever said about the right as simple political hyperbole.

    Your memory is failing. When the US was attacked on 9/11 Bush got the keys to the family car — and promptly drove it off a cliff.

    Absolutely, there were some leftwing nuts who screamed about a stolen election, but they weren’t marching in the streets calling themselves tea baggers were they?

    I wholeheartedly concede there were idiots then, and throughout the Bush presidency–but there were also legitimate beefs with Bush and his policies.

    The only thing that even comes close to what we have seen from the right is the far left’s (and left leaning) protest of the war in Iraq. And they were right!

    You bring up several debatable points on healthcare, cap and trade, and immigration…I might even agree with some of arguments on these, if the right actually made an argument.

    That is not what we are talking about.

    We are talking about a bat crap crazy group of people who hijacked the GOP from reasonable people.

    If you consider yourself a reasonable person, you should be pissed off because your voice is being overshouted by the bat crap crazy vocal minority (maybe majority) of your party.

    If you’re defending this nonsense with anything as lame as “Well people thought Bush was a poopy-head too” then, pal, your part of that bat crap crazy group.

    Previously, most people were directing their comments at the nuts in the GOP. You told MR after paint with some pretty broad strokes earlier that if he wasn’t one of those nuts on the left, than not to take umbrage at your comments. Seems pretty clear you are including yourself in with the wackos on the right, or otherwise why say people are calling you names?

    Take your own advice.

    If you’re not bat crap crazy, then simply acknowledge those idiots who are. If you count yourself among those folks, well, take all the umbrage you want.

  47. kranky kritter Says:

    Hey, Gerry!

    Kettle here. The black kettle. Pointing out that the pot is black just like me. :-)

    I think we need some sort of census. Most of the info about righty wingnuts I get is from complaining progressives. I don’t know any, or meet any in the streets. Granted, I live in MA, but…

    …this leads me to wonder whether they are more than an angry fringe. And if so, how much more. Progressives seem extraordinarily eager to point these folks out to me and make me very worried about them. But I don’t get the sense that they are finding many converts to their cause with their silly, angry, unconvincing, black and white hyperbole.

    Meanwhile, I do get the sense that the democrats benefit from persistently highlighting the kookiest righties. I do also get the sense that responsible conservatives see nothing to gain right now from directly and vocally opposing these angry righty kooks. I tend to agree with this assessment, at least in the short term.

    And I think that progressives know this, and are using this dynamic to just CLOBBER conservatives for their angry kooks. That’s their prerogative, of course. But I am utterly unpersuaded that these folks are either representative of conservatism or a serious long-term problem. I think they are going to blow themselves out.

  48. Doomed Says:

    @Doomed, you can’t seriously be comparing the Panthers to the KKK. Unless of course you’re TRYING to destroy what little credibility you had.

    no.

  49. Doomed Says:

    The left is so angry that they can no longer think clearly.

    Perhaps they have reason to be angry but they have no reason to be so angry as to stop thinking clearly.

    I have been in 5 tea parties. My tea parties I dont rightly recall seeing many Obama is hitler signs.

    Oh yeah. I saw a couple of nasty signs. But the problem with you guys is your letting MSNBC and CNN cherry pick signs to show you and find some really stupid, batshit crazy moron to interview and then run it…….then you all believe that everyone marching in the streets is carrying Obama is Hitler and we are all toothless morons.

    Super Job MSM….thanks for that.

    Actually in the Tea parties I have partaken in I have actually found a lot of democrats, libertarians as well as Republicans.

    The march is about taxes….its always been about taxes. But the MSM doesnt want Obama to have his feelings hurt so they have gone a million miles out of their way to skew the coverage of it into something that its not.

    NEVER….EVER can you have 10,000 or 100,000 people getting together and not have your share of wierdos and bizarre individuals.

    But never ever on either side does that mean its time to stop thinking clearly and to listen to what the other side says.

    Im all for healthcare reform. So is nearly everyone I know…Hell we dont enjoy high premiums, crummy coverage etc. The problem for us Republicans is not health care reform…..the debate is about what that entails.

    Stop and listen to each other and when you do that….you will actually hear that with the exception of a public option both sides are nearly on the same page. Is just we have 1.8 trillion deficit this year…1.5 trillion projected next year….where and when will that end if we pile on top of that more entitlement programs which is what the Democrats are wanting to do with health care REFORM.

  50. Agnostick Says:

    the troll writes:

    But my objection to this POST was that the author attributed to the Right a desire to be unamerican, and Unpatriotic for being happy that Obama failed in his bid to bring the olympics to Chicago.

    “Obama failed in his bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago.”

    His bid?

    When did this become his bid?

    Yet another blatant twisting of words by the troll and its contemporaries elsewhere.

    Exactly what do these people think happened? Do they think that Barack, Michelle, and Valerie got together over a few beers at the White House and threw a little PowerPoint together, over the Labor Day weekend?

    Suppose McCain had won the election last November… and we were talking about Phoenix, Arizona’s bid for the 2016 games? If “President McCain” helped out with a video, or a personal visit… does anyone think that the Democrat/Left/Liberal citizens would wish failure, purely out of some hatred or dislike for McCain? Or even that, somehow, bringing the Olympics to Phoenix (or any other city) would be some sort of economic boondoggle?

    This is looking more and more like the same kind of crackpot logic that fuels birther derangement syndrome. Just as some of those folks think President Obama’s kinfolk “planted” birth announcementd in Hawaii newspapers, so he could be president… do they now also think that the United States Olympic Committee, way back in 2006 (or earlier), chose Chicago because they “knew” that “President Obama” was a shoe-in? Is Peter Ueberroth a major cog in the Chicago political machine?

    Seriously: How is this–or how did it become–”Obama’s bid?”

    Agnostick
    [email protected]

  51. Doomed Says:

    If “President McCain” helped out with a video, or a personal visit… does anyone think that the Democrat/Left/Liberal citizens would wish failure, purely out of some hatred or dislike for McCain?

    Absolutely without a doubt. Many on the left would be dancing in the streets.

    Bid was a verb…….LOL….not a noun.

    Wow its amazing what right wing haters will stoop to in order to keep their anger fueled.

  52. Doomed Says:

    Bid was a verb…….LOL….not a noun.

    Actually in thinking about it…It might be an adverb but it was never meant to be a noun which would change the entire premise of the paragraph or at least sentence.

  53. michael reynolds Says:

    The march is about taxes….its always been about taxes.

    Bull. Taxes have not gone up. They won’t go up for the vast majority of people.

    Again: it was rage first, policy second.

    Here’s a simple test, Doomed:

    List the things that Obama has actually done that are cause for rage. Not your interpretations or spin or fantasy, but the actual actions taken.

  54. mike mcEachran Says:

    @ blackoutyears – I understand your impatience with rage and rants like mine. It’s hardly moderate, and I’m sure it seems “hopeless”. I guess the issue is that I (and I assume many people like me) are ready to put the anger we feel at the Bush years behind us, and move on to a middle ground of concensus. That’s partly why many of us voted for Obama after all- becuase he promised to lead us there. But the past lives on in billboards like the one that started this post. I try very hard to keep a cool eye about it, but it’s difficult to do when the ugliness and hyperbole and dishonesty is so out in the open. I understand the GOP is out of power, and has a knife to it’s throat, and is stuggling to remain relevant at all costs – but that’s what the election was about. They lost. The character of a person or a party is revealed when the chips are down. So, the true character of the GOP is revealed. It wasn’t just Bush – he wasn’t an anomoly – he was a symptom. And I’m a little tired of trying to find common ground with obstructionists. If Obama allowed himself to negotiate with a third-world country as obstinate as the GOP, he’d be ridiculed for weakness. And yet here he is. So, I’m a little pissed at him, too, frankly. (More anger – sheesh… Yeah, I need to work on it.) Anyway, I’m all for common ground when we find a reliable partner willing to go there. But in the meantime, I don’t see it. I wish, oh how I wish, the GOP would actually enter the debate, because I don’t really trust the Dems to get it 100% right. I’m afraid of Dem incompetents and wackos too. But I’m way more afraid of the GOP – OMG. Anyway, my anger is more a result of the GOP shirking it’s responsibility to roll up it’s sleeves and work on these problems. We need them to present an honest case, and help us get to concensus. But forgive me for being suspicious that these people don’t have my best interest in mind. And forgive me for wondering if the whole lot of them should just be summarily discounted. The evidence is pretty stark that maybe, just maybe they are bad for us. After all we’ve been through, it is up to them to prove me wrong. I’m waiting.

  55. Agnostick Says:

    Parsing grammar, because you have no realistic and plausible response to my question.

    A true sign of troll behavior…

    Missing The Point – Trolls rarely answer a direct question – they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle – so they develop a fine line in missing the point.

  56. Doomed Says:

    Agnostick

    I answered your question. Your lack of reading comprehension allowed you to pose an entire rant of hypotheticals based upon something I did not say and did not imply.

    Bid……..past tense and past participle, bid. To offer or propose

    Transitive verb.

    If that makes me a troll. then what does that make you?

  57. Doomed Says:

    @MR

    1) On people making more than $250,000.

    $338 billion – Bush tax cuts expire
    $179 billlion – eliminate itemized deduction
    $118 billion – capital gains tax hike

    Total: $636 billion/10 years

    2) Businesses:

    $17 billion – Reinstate Superfund taxes
    $24 billion – tax carried-interest as income
    $5 billion – codify “economic substance doctrine”
    $61 billion – repeal LIFO
    $210 billion – international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
    $4 billion – information reporting for rental payments
    $5.3 billion – excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
    $3.4 billion – repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
    $62 million – repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
    $49 million – repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
    $13 billion – repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
    $1 billion – increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
    $882 million – eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

    Total: $353 billion/10 years

    The Joint Committee on Taxation says drug companies, medical device manufacturers and insurers would pay $121 billion over 10 years as a result of taxes in the Senate Finance Committee bill.

    Corporations dont pay taxes…They just raise prices and pass the tax on to us.

  58. Doomed Says:

    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Obama expressed a willingness to consider changing the existing tax exclusion. The decision would probably anger liberal supporters such as labor unions, but such a tax change would raise enormous sums of money as Congress and the White House are struggling to find the estimated $1.2 trillion needed to pay for health-care reform over the next decade.

    Shall I keep on keeping on??

    The problem with this is that the Obama administration is raising all these taxes and is still not doing anything about the deficit. We are then going to have great health care coverage and going broke like a runnaway freight train down icy rails in the dead of winter.

    In addition……Barak Obama refused to meet with the Dhali Lama because heaven forbid the Chinese might not buy our junk bonds.

  59. Doomed Says:

    the government unexpectedly raised rates by more than 20 percent on the in-patient co-payments that must be paid by retired military veterans and their families who have their health insurance provided by Veterans Affairs.The Defense Department announced the rate increase Sept. 30, and it went into effect the next day, Oct. 1, taking several military advocates by surprise.

    However, in early February, just days into his presidency, President Obama signed the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation. This puts into effect a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack.

    According to Americans for Tax Reform — a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal and state tax increases — Obama’s new tax increase will be borne largely by the very middle- and low-income Americans he said he would not raise taxes on:

    No one is including the “Climate Revenues” of $645 billion. “Climate Revenues” is defined in the overview as “Proceeds from auctioning emission allowances” — i.e. the Carbon Tax that every American will be forced to pay because it is a pass-on tax to the consumer. Actually, according to the fine print of the Obama budget overview, the $645 billion shown is just the portion of the “Climate Revenues” that are currently designated to “clean energy technologies” and “Making Work Pay” program. The footnote explains, “Shown here [i.e. the $645 billion] are those proceeds from auctioning emission allowances that are reserved for clean energy technology initiatives and to compensate families through the Making Work Pay tax cut…. All additional net proceeds will be used to further compensate the public.”

    Essentially my friend the ONLY thing Obama HAS been doing is raising taxes.

  60. michael reynolds Says:

    Doomed:

    353 billion over 10 years, and how much of that actually affects you? How much do you think affects the townhall screamers? They didn’t strike me as a well-off bunch.

    35 billion a year in the context of our national budget isn’t even beer money. So, sorry, but I call BS on that. First because I suspect your figures — 210 billion for enforcing international tax regs? That’s an increase? No, that’s going after tax cheats.

    Second because even if every bit of it was true (it’s not) it’s chickenfeed that has virtually no impact on the average taxpayer. As it happens it does affect me: and I support it. And I don’t really need a bunch of tea partiers to defend my interests, thanks just the same.

    After that you devolve into “Max Baucus says maybe . . .” and similar speculation.

    Americans For Tax reform is in no way, shape or form non-partisan or objective. They are flat taxers. Its president is Grover Norquist, a right wing nut.

    So your sources are BS, your exaggeration of the amounts is BS, your attempt to lump in every “he said maybe . . .” speculation to bolster your case is BS, and the notion that this load of drivel is the motive force behind the tea parties is BS.

    As I expected: you got nothin’.

  61. Nancy Hanks Says:

    Love that picture of Chicago! (One of my home towns!)

  62. Agnostick Says:

    Plagiarize much?

    the government unexpectedly raised rates by more than 20 percent on the in-patient co-payments that must be paid by retired military veterans and their families who have their health insurance provided by Veterans Affairs.The Defense Department announced the rate increase Sept. 30, and it went into effect the next day, Oct. 1, taking several military advocates by surprise.

    http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/10/06/vets-hospital-rates-raised-more-than-20/

    http://infidelsparadise.com/?p=2478

    However, in early February, just days into his presidency, President Obama signed the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation. This puts into effect a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack.

    According to Americans for Tax Reform — a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal and state tax increases — Obama’s new tax increase will be borne largely by the very middle- and low-income Americans he said he would not raise taxes on:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=21b_1235174141
    (A sentence that ends with a colon? )

    No one is including the “Climate Revenues” of $645 billion. “Climate Revenues” is defined in the overview as “Proceeds from auctioning emission allowances” — i.e. the Carbon Tax that every American will be forced to pay because it is a pass-on tax to the consumer. Actually, according to the fine print of the Obama budget overview, the $645 billion shown is just the portion of the “Climate Revenues” that are currently designated to “clean energy technologies” and “Making Work Pay” program. The footnote explains, “Shown here [i.e. the $645 billion] are those proceeds from auctioning emission allowances that are reserved for clean energy technology initiatives and to compensate families through the Making Work Pay tax cut…. All additional net proceeds will be used to further compensate the public.”

    http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/obama-budget-more-than-16?id=2600775%3ABlogPost%3A493689&page=4

    Geez, somebody take out the troll trash, already…

    Agnostick
    [email protected]

  63. Doomed Says:

    Agnostic those are all cut and pasted from other reputable sites. If you think Im going to write all of that for you when your response is going to be

    Geez, somebody take out the troll trash, already…

    Your sadly mistaken. All I can do is present the facts to people like you and let you call me a liar because it rocks your progressive world.

    As for MR……your just babbling. First you ask me to point out taxes and I give you pages of them that have been raised and then you babble that they wont affect you.

    Right.

  64. Agnostick Says:

    Yet you don’t acknowledge the work of others… preferring to pass it off as your own?

    Totally bereft of morals, troll–but then most extremists are…

    P.S. Busted

    P.P.S. I wonder how many of your other entries are copy/paste jobs?

  65. Doomed Says:

    Yet you don’t acknowledge the work of others… preferring to pass it off as your own?

    Alinsky says……Pick the target,(Doomed) freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

    “The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments…. It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?…

    Wow Agnostick do you teach Alinsky in your Radical world? You do a fine job of deflecting the argument away from the truth using Saul Alinsky tactics.

    Now let me opine once again. Tea party marches are about taxes…I listed pages of taxes that went up…instead of debating those you simply try to attack me…..Classic alinsky….classic.

    MR ask for these facts…I present them and he says…well uhh, BS they wont affect me….

    Really taxes on business wont affect him? Does anyone by now not realize that taxing businesses is a cute way of taxing YOU…businesses dont pay taxes…YOU DO.

  66. michael reynolds Says:

    Doomed:

    No, what I asked you to do is make sense of your contention that the tea parties and townhall loons are all about tax increases.

    You came back with a BS list of taxes which, even if they were all real (and they aren’t) amount to a 2% increase in government receipts.

    Sorry, but people don’t start screaming about Hitler, Stalin, fascism, communism and all the other Birther, Deather, Tea Bagger nuttiness over a 2% tax increase that doesn’t even affect them directly.

  67. Doomed Says:

    MR

    One of the great debate tactics of the left is to look at facts….Deny those facts and then switch the subject.

    In this case I present you with 1.65 trillion dollars in new taxes. You then call it BS…..and then start accsuing tea party members of screaming about Hitler, Stalin, fascism and communism and all kinds of other non sense.

    Good job of using the Lefts Alinsky tactics for not wanting to have a real debate.

    How can I take you seriously here on this site when you and Agnostic are not willing to even tackle the facts.

    1.65 trillion is more then the Bush tax cuts. Yet the Bush tax cuts were going to destroy America. Now here we have 1.65 trillion and that doesnt even touch on the taxes that will be contained in the new health care bill that will amount to another 1 plus trillion.

    Now….weve added 2.6 trillion in taxes over 10 years and havent even touched the deficits…

    Dick Cheney said….”Deficits don’t matter.” Are you guys now siding with Cheney?

  68. Doomed Says:

    What is LIFO? LIFO (which stands for “last in, first out”) is an inventory accounting method used by companies throughout the U.S. economy to determine both book income and tax liability. Book income is the amount of earnings shown on business financial
    statements. Tax liability is the amount of income tax owed to the government

    Repealing LIFO would be a massive tax increase on hundreds of thousands of large and small American businesses, and could force many smaller ones to close. CUT AND PASTED.

    This is just one area where medium and small businesses are being affected by the repeal of LIFO. 61 billion in tax increases. These businesses either have to raise their fees to pay for this tax or they shut their doors or they fire people to pay for the costs of LIFO repeal.

    You can believe that the Democrats love you….you can believe that the Democrats sit up nights worrying about the middle class and poor in America but guess what.

    If we give the POOR food stamps….they are still POOR.
    If we give the poor FREE health care…..they are still poor.
    If we give the poor public housing….they are still poor.
    If we raise the minimum wage…everyone raises prices and the POOR are still POOR.

    The democrats are nothing but an organization that claims they are all for the little man and what that really means is keeping the little man tied to their apron strings and dependent upon the government for handouts to survive.

    The drug of choice for the Democrats is poverty….they do things to help the poor while NEVER ever helping them to NO LONGER BE POOR.

    No one wants to debate issues. Everyone believes they know the truth and anyone who rocks their boat gets the I hate you meme. How many names Ive been called in this one thread I have lost count, simply for presenting the other side of the debate.

  69. michael reynolds Says:

    Doomed:

    In this case I present you with 1.65 trillion dollars in new taxes

    You did no such thing.

    Give me the numbers of the bills — endorsed by Obama — that reveal a plan to raise taxes by 1.6 trillion dollars.

    One of the tactics of the right is to live inside an echo chamber of lies and paranoia and then imagine that the rest of us will simply buy into those lies.

  70. michael reynolds Says:

    Doomed:

    Do me a favor. Compare tax rates that will apply after the Bush tax cuts expire, with the tax rates Mr. Reagan had in place. Come back and tell us all what you find. And explain why this is the apocalypse.

  71. Doomed Says:

    MR

    Open your eyes man.

    Those taxes are from Obama’s own 2010 budget. That is an analysis of Obama’s own 2010 Budget.

    AS for the 645 Billion it depends on if you choose Kerry’s cap and trade bill or the boxer cap and trade bill that is going to pass…..or it might not pass…..We can only hope that it doesnt pass….that we make a difference and that we change minds.

    Nice try on the echo chamber but I actually do my research rather then take for granted my own paycheck hasnt risen so gee there must not be any new taxes out there and if my OWN paycheck hasnt risen then those GOP’ers who claim all these new taxes are Liars.

  72. Doomed Says:

    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/03/comparing-income-taxes-clinton-vs-bush.html

    You might find this interesting.

    Here you can see that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will bring a tax increase to all those middle class people that Obama said will not see their income tax raise one dime.

    The middle class got a huge tax break under the Bush tax cuts to the point that even the democrats voted for it.

    For example A person under Clinton who made 65,000 dollars per year paid 28 percent under Clinton. Under Bush tax cuts the same person paid 15 FIFTEEN percent.

    Dont be snookered by your own party….they want tax money to pay for all their social programs to keep the poor POOR….they dont care about the middle class….they are lying to you way more then the Republicans are lying to you.

  73. michael reynolds Says:

    Doomed:

    The top tax rate in Reagan’s first term was 50% This was followed by a boom.

    Taxes were then lowered, and Mr. Reagan handed Mr. Bush the elder a recession.

    The top tax rate under Mr. Clinton was 39.6%. During which time we had economic good times, as you may recall, and balanced the budget.

    Mr. Bush dropped the rate to 35% and we had an exploding deficit followed by a crisis of historic proportions.

    Now Mr. Obama is talking about letting those cuts expire and returning us to the same top marginal rate we had under Mr. Clinton, and a lower rate than during Mr. Reagan’s “Morning in America.”

    And your theory is that this is the motive for screaming, Hitler-shouting, spittle-flecked townhall and tea party madness. The terrible fear that it might be as awful as it was under Mr. Clinton or Reagan 1.

    Yeah. That’s totally believable. Because there’s nothing that scares people worse than the idea of economic good times.

  74. Nick Benjamin Says:

    @Doomed, you can’t seriously be comparing the Panthers to the KKK. Unless of course you’re TRYING to destroy what little credibility you had.

    The current Panthers are somewhat comparable to the current Klan, in that they’re a bunch of extremist whackoes nobody takes seriously. Technically calling them Black Panthers is illegal, because the 70s-era Black Panthers refuse to let them use the name.

    The 70s-era black panthers were nothing like the Klan. They were Communist, and their biggest projects were watching the cops (they got publicity for this the same way the teapartiers do — by bringing perfectly legal firearms along) and running social service programs in black neighborhoods.

    BTW, Doomed,

    there’s a function called blockquote. Put it between brackets (

    without a space), paste your quote, then type (

    also without a space).

    If you’re doing it right the post preview will have your quotes all purty.

    Your posts will be much more readable.

  75. Nick Benjamin Says:

    Damn my blockquote demonstration did not work. Put blockquote between the brackets to open the quotes, then end the quotes by typing the same thing, but with a / before blockquote.

  76. Doomed Says:

    Ok MR

    Reagans rates were initially dropped from 69-50 percent and the recession continued.

    The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986, (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986)CUT AND PASTED FROM WIKI……..The rate was dropped from 50 percent to 28 percent and the boom started.

    There was no boom when the rates were 50 percent and in fact the recession continued with the S&L debacle and bail outs. Regan began running deficits to pay for a huge military which actually stimulated the economy out of the recession in late 1983.

    When Bush Sr. Got into office he allowed rates to ease upward which got him into huge trouble with his own party….remember the NO NEW TAXES? He allowed taxes to rise which created a recession. His recession lasted 6 months and was over when Clinton entered office.

    But thanks for the revisionist history lesson Im sure Obama and the democrats who continue to make sure the poor remain poor so they have a reason to vote Democrat…thank you.

  77. michael reynolds Says:

    Recession July 1981 to November 1982 (Reagan takes office, marginal rate: 50%)
    Recession July 1990 to March 1991 (Reagan 28% and then 30% rate in effect)

    So Reagan had two recessions under two very different tax rates. He left office having massively increased the deficit — so much so that George Bush the Elder had to raise taxes to undo Mr. Reagan’s mess.

    Bill Clinton then raised marginal tax rates further, balanced the budget, and we saw a period of huge economic growth.

    Mr. Bush Jr. came to office and cut taxes, ballooned the deficit and left office with the economy staring at depression.

    Once again: this is not why we are getting spittle-flecked rants from the crazy train. It’s not taxes. Half the people in this country don’t even pay income taxes. Taxes are a stalking horse for a host of other issues: racism, cultural panic, and generalized right wing paranoia.

  78. michael reynolds Says:

    OOPS. Sorry, transcription error there. Let me check.

  79. michael reynolds Says:

    I mistated: that second recession was during Bush the Elder, not Reagan, but the Reagan rates were still in effect. Bush’s tax increases came into effect in late 1990 by which point we were already in recession. We came out of that recession soon after Bush raised taxes.

  80. blackoutyears Says:

    @Mike McE — I understand the frustration completely, I just don’t happen to think it’s an excuse for taking the low road. I think consensus comes from us, not Obama, and it starts with civility, humility, and more open-mindedness than either party has shown each other in a long time. I don’t agree with much of Doomed’s points, but I do think he’s correct about the insults and reductiveness coming from the Left, just as the Left is correct about the same from the Right. Instead of everyone crying false equivalency, how about just owning up to the fact that no one’s going out of their way to ensure mature debate.

  81. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Bill Clinton then raised marginal tax rates further, balanced the budget, and we saw a period of huge economic growth.

    More like a huge economic bubble based on inflated stock prices which bust in 2000 leaving Mr. Bush Jr. with a major recession before he took over.

    Also a budget surplus ( based on cutting military and intelligence spending during the emergence of Al-qaeda no less), which was wiped out completely one year after the Nasdaq bubble burst.

    Clintongreenspanbushbernakeobamanomics:
    1) Boom
    2) Bust
    3) Repeat

  82. Justin Gardner Says:

    LOL!!!

    Jimmy claims this is because of Clinton and Obama?

    Good lord.

    Doomed Says:

    I voted for Clinton Twice. I thought he was a fine president. I wished he were still in charge. Our deficit would most likely be gone and we would be in strong financial shape.

    Because America is a consumer driven free market with massive regulations and…..AND we fuel our consumerism with DEBT we are going to have a recession every 5-9 years…Guaranteed. Its always political and its always bunk. Its not Clintons fault, Its not Bush’s Fault. Its the systems fault.

    But I would that you guys would seriously challenge your leaders…Dems….they are leading you on the road to perdition….We are hopelessly in debt and I would be applauding these tax hikes if they were designed to solve our deficits. They are not.

    In the end we end up with more taxes, more deficits and less of an ability to repay our debt because we’ve used up our taxation ability to address the debt.

    I know most of you think that health care reform will cure the debt….I challenge that with all that I am. This is the Federal government who has never ever in the history of the world created an entitlement program thats remotely paid for itself.

  83. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    …and Greenspan and Bush and Bernake.

    ROFLMAO!!!

  84. mike mcEachran Says:

    @ balckoutyears – I will be more concious of the road I take. It’s good advice, and part of my Bush Derangement Syndrom recovery plan. However, I think one can take the high road and still call a banana a banana when neccessary (to quote another post burried somewhere in here).

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: