Drudge-hyped Wash. Times "analysis" cited only Republicans to declare Obama's " 'Doom' talk scored as 'not Presidential' "
SUMMARY: A Washington Times "analysis," promoted by the Drudge Report and ABCNews.com's The Note, quoted only Republicans to make the claim that President Obama's purported language of "doom" regarding the economy has been deemed "not presidential."
In a February 9 Washington Times "analysis" titled, " 'Doom' talk scored as 'not Presidential' " -- promoted by the Drudge Report and ABCNews.com's The Note -- senior White House correspondent Joseph Curl quoted only Republican pollster Frank Luntz and Republican strategist Brad Blakeman to support the headline's assertion that President Obama's purported language of "doom" has been deemed "not presidential." Curl also asserted that Obama "has sought to terrify Americans into supporting" the economic recovery bill and uncritically quoted Blakeman's claim that "[w]hen [Obama] goes to 'DefCon 5' on the economy and says that we're on the brink of catastrophe, it's absolutely insane." But Curl ignored reports that many economists agree that substantial fiscal stimulus is urgently needed given the current economic conditions, and that time is of the essence.
For instance, in a February 8 article, The Washington Post reported, "While economists remain divided on the role of government generally, an overwhelming number from both parties are saying that a government stimulus package -- even a flawed one -- is urgently needed to help prevent a steeper slide in the economy." The Post continued:
Many economists say the precise size and shape of the package developing in Congress matter less than the timing, and that any delay is damaging.
"Most of the things in the package, the big dollar amounts, are things that are pretty quick stimulus and need to be done," said Alice Rivlin, who was former president Bill Clinton's budget director and who criticized aspects of the proposed stimulus in congressional testimony two weeks ago. "Is it a perfect package? Of course not. But we're past that. Let's just do it."
Economists who initially rejected the need for fiscal stimulus have warmed to the idea, too. Several months ago, Alan Viard, a Bush administration economist now at the American Enterprise Institute, thought the right size for a government spending bill was "probably zero." He favored reliance on the Federal Reserve to slash interest rates and existing unemployment benefits to bolster the jobless.
Now Viard shares the view that a stimulus package is needed, although he would prefer one limited primarily to tax cuts and direct benefits for victims of the recession, such as increased unemployment benefits.
"Things have gotten so bad so quickly," Viard said. "We have now lost 3.6 million jobs, a stunning loss. But what's more horrifying is that half that loss has occurred in the last three months. This is a severe recession. There's no doubt about it."
[...]
In Hawaii on Friday, San Francisco Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen added her voice to the supporters of quick action on a stimulus measure.
"In ordinary circumstances, there are good reasons why monetary, rather than fiscal, policy should be used to stabilize the economy," she said, citing lags in adopting and implementing government spending programs. "The result is that fiscal stimulus sometimes kicks in only after the need has passed. However, the current situation is extraordinary, making the case for fiscal action very strong."
Yellen said, "There is -- and there should be -- vigorous debate about the form it should take and about the likely effectiveness of particular fiscal strategies. However, it is critical that decisions on these matters be made on a timely basis so that the economy's downward spiral is not allowed to deepen."
From Curl's February 9 Washington Times "analysis":
From crisis to catastrophe. Off a cliff. Dark, darker, darkest. Mortal danger of absolute collapse. Armageddon.
President Obama and top Democrats on Capitol Hill are deploying these and other stark predictions of doom and gloom to push through their economic-stimulus package. In terms not heard in Washington since the late 1970s under President Jimmy Carter's watch, the new president has sought to terrify Americans into supporting the $800 billion-plus bailout bill.
While President Bush was accused shortly after taking office in 2001 of "talking down the economy" - and for saying the economy was "slowing down" - Mr. Obama is using ever-heightening hyperbole to hammer home his message. But the strategy brings great risk for the "Yes, We Can" man, who just three weeks ago told America in his inaugural address that despite "a sapping of confidence across our land," his election meant Americans had "chosen hope over fear."
"Mr. Hope has to be careful not to become Dr. Doom," said Frank Luntz, a political consultant and author of the book "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear."
"The danger for him is using the Jimmy Carter malaise rhetoric, particularly for Mr. Obama, who was elected because people thought he was the solution. There's only so much negativity they will tolerate from him before they will feel betrayed," Mr. Luntz said.
Brad Blakeman, a senior aide to Mr. Bush from 2001 to 2004, said the new president's language is immature.
"It's not presidential. An American leader needs to be hopeful and optimistic - and truthful. Everything he says is parsed; everything he says is searched for deep meaning. When he goes to 'DefCon 5' on the economy and says that we're on the brink of catastrophe, it's absolutely insane."
"...it's absolutely insane."
Telling the truth is insane? Is this what we've come to...? If there is ever another terrorist attack on US soil perhaps the right wingers would suggest that President Obama deny that the attack occurred or at least lie about the number of casualties.
What did these people say when Bush told the nation that the smoking gun about Iraq weapons would be a mushroom cloud? He was screaming FIRE in a crowded theater.
Obama's message is generally accepted as factual, with the disagreement being what to do about the problem, if anything.
Riiiiiiiight ... Take it from Frank Lutz. Yeah, he had NOTHING to do with Bush's hyperbolic axis of evil and end-of-the-world doom & gloom. And W would NEVER talk about dire consequences like this. Good grief.
Exactly...and particularly ironic (hypocritical?) since Luntz was considered the master of manipulative word usage.
Not by many people other than Luntz himself, though.
Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour used him in 1994 in the elections for the 104th Congress (remember GOPAC)...and they won.
Oh, yeah.... the same Congress that gave us the "Contract on America" and named Rush Limbaugh as an honorary member.
Yep...exactly. Luntz was their "word guy".
And the word was "lie."
Could it be that the real disappointment with Obama is that he's being too nice to the Republicans?
Since you ask...
Snoopy, that is nice, but you should show that the numbers are falling. The more we learn about this Pork Bill, the more say, No. Don't worry, I am using locations you Libs love.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/stimulus.polls/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/05/opinion/polls/main4778192.shtml
Sure about that?
Now you're just confusing him with all that complicated logic and facts stuff.
Part of the problem is that trolls kept touting the Ras poll that kept claiming most people wants tax cut...
Ras polls sucks, period.
"While President Bush was accused shortly after taking office in 2001 of "talking down the economy" - and for saying the economy was "slowing down" - Mr. Obama is using ever-heightening hyperbole to hammer home his message."
Perhaps one economic situation happens to be more severe than the other?
"But the strategy brings great risk for the "Yes, We Can" man, who just three weeks ago told America in his inaugural address that despite "a sapping of confidence across our land," his election meant Americans had "chosen hope over fear.""
Apparently the election itself was supposed to be the solution to everything. It would seem to me that "yes we can" means taking action during the presidency. In November it was "hope" to point out our problems and say we can fix them, but now it's "doom" to point out our problems in order to figure out how to fix them.
"Perhaps one economic situation happens to be more severe than the other?"
Yeah, so severe that the democratically controlled house/senate are going to add $500 Billion to the needed amount as pork barrel spending. You know...the kind Obama "promised" would not happen while he was president. Similar to his "promise" that crooks wouldn't serve on his cabinet. How bad is the economy if democrats can double the amount needed, to repair it, just to satisfy their greed?
$500 billion in "Pork"? I guess that means that ALL of the spending is "pork"?
Try pulling your head out of Rush Limbaugh's a$$ for just one day.
Maybe you can tell me how much is pork in this $827 Billion stimulus package? I've heard 50% is pork spending. Do you have actual numbers? Try pulling your head out of mmfa's a$$ for just one day.
Phil,
Before any legitimate analysis can be done by other posters, please post your definition of "pork." I am guessing there are many definitions depending on one's political philosophy. For example, if money is going to global warming one who denies global warming will certainly call that money pork while those who see the problem will see it as "spending."
fried, if you are serious about actually discussing something, try to understand we are talking about an economic stimulus pachage. From your definition of pork, I see you think to "spend" money is stimulating the economy. Well, in that fashion, the US government is stimulating the economy every day while fighting the war on terror.
How will condoms stimulate the economy? Do you believe Pelosi's arguement supporting that hundreds of millions to go to condoms?
I believe that the condoms stuff is out, correct? I know full well what we are discussing, Phil. To make a discussion go smoother, it would be nice to know your definition of "pork." I didn't define pork, I just gave an example on how two people could differ as to its meaning.
If the condoms are still in, do you think that education on birth control could cut down on unwanted pregnancies, and maybe those receiving government aid in the future?
"do you think that education on birth control could cut down on unwanted pregnancies, and maybe those receiving government aid in the future?"
Ahhh, so you think every human born in the US is a drain on society? That is another reason why I don't follow democratic principals. I think of everyone born as another future taxpayer. One that will support his/her government, not put a drain on it.
Unwanted pregnacies cut down by birth control education? Has it worked so far? Considering the built-in failure rate of condoms, and the hormonal urges of teenagers, all your education does is teach them how to do it more, not how to do it wisely. But, that leads to the inherent hypocrisy of liberals: they demand sex education, then demand the right to kill babies, then demand the government to support both decisions, but refuse to help religious groups teach any other way of sex education.
You have reading comprehension problems. Is every human born an UNWANTED PREGNANCY? No... Has birth control education cut down unwanted pregnancies? Yes... Does educaton of condoms (you stated only condoms, but sex ed is much more comprehensive- you should take a course!) teach people how to do it wisely? There is no 'wise' way to put on a condom. If you mean make a 'wise choice' (versus having NO OTHER choice for lack of sex ed), then, HECK YES!! Do some religious groups teach 'other' (do you mean abstinence? Because if you do, that 'other way' is a failure compared to comprehensive sex ed) ways of sex ed? Yes... Have they worked better than sex ed?- no.
No, Phil, I don't think that every human born is a drain. I don't see how you leapt to that conclusion.
Sex education in this country has not been centered around birth control, it has been centered around abstenence. If you think sex is inevitable for some teens, which I do, might as well teach them to be safe, no?
I thought you weren't going off-topic, Phil?
50% - so according to you, anything that is not a tax cut is pork. Since you wanna play kiddie games, my answer is ther is 0% pork. I know you are but what am I?
Don't worry, snoop. I would expect that answer from you. I would expect that you are receiving all kinds of government handouts, so you would (naturally) support any and all pork that is in that package. Which would account for your un-ending support of all things democrat ... since democrats promote government handouts to all but the needy.
woo hoo, ya got me there! Yeah, I just love collecting welfare and using food stamps to buy my beer. I should have quit my job years ago, this lifestyle is soooo great - and totally at your expense! What was I ever thinking, getting an education and then making $100,000 a year as an automation engineer? And to think, since I'm now considered needy, I can thank you for this generous support because no democrat (in your words) would support something like this!
You're welcome, snoop. However, you won't be collecting all that support on my dime. I have one of those newly created jobs that the president promises will save the nation. However, along with the other 300,000 jobs being created, I won't be paying any taxes. So, you'll have to look elsewhere to think you're living off my contributions. Wonder how that'll work, he promises to create hundreds of thousands of jobs to create more income for the nation, but the jobs will be entry level-no taxation jobs. How will that stimulate the economy?
Phlibber has "heard" that it is 50% pork. From whom have you heard this, Plibber? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Have you heard it from anyone who doesn't lie for a living?
You're the one making the charge, Phlibber.... you come up with actual numbers.
If I read these statements right, YOU say the entire package is only $500 billion. Where do you get your numbers from?
Posted by nerzog in reply to philib: $500 billion in "Pork"? I guess that means that ALL of the spending is "pork"?
"Yeah, so severe that the democratically controlled house/senate are going to add $500 Billion to the needed amount as pork barrel spending." - Philib
Actually, YOU are the one who said it is $500 billion in 'pork', (as quoted above). Nerzog was just quoting what YOU wrote.
What is it with you right-wing idiots and reading comprehension? You guys cannot post a coherent post, nor can you read what's in black and white, right in front of you. Are you dishonest, or just intellectually challenged?
Because not all of the bill is spending, Phlibber. Try to keep up. 42% is tax cuts, despite your refusal to admit it. You're the one who spouted the $500 billion figure.
It's absolutely bizarre... The day after President Obama was inaugurated an irate (but usually pretty rational) Republican friend of mine said that from now on every death in Iraq and Afghanistan are on Obama's hands...his fault. What...like Obama's election automatically resolved those conflicts? It's bizarre...and insane.
I'll bet that friend blamed 9/11 on Bill Clinton, though, didn't he?
Well, whose fault are they? Obama is the one "in charge" now. He must take responsibility for his actions. He promised to send more troops to Afghanistan and if more troops die, they will certainly be the fault of Obama.
Clinton had his chance to kill OBL, he failed to even try. Bush had his chance to kill OBL, he failed. Now...it's on Obama. He's the one claiming he will end it all, once and for all. How many more soldiers have to die in this illegal war (as you people put it)? Or, are you saying that this illegal war is no longer illegal, now that Obama is in charge?
Clinton had his chance to kill OBL, he failed to even try.
Revisionist history AGAIN raises its ugly head.
He's the one claiming he will end it all, once and for all.
In case you haven't noticed, Obama hasn't been in office for even a MONTH.
"Revisionist history AGAIN raises its ugly head."
What were the results of Clinton "trying"? Is OBL alive or dead? What attempts did Clinton make? Here's you chance to change 'revisionist history'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/155252.stm
...but if your measure of "trying" is whether or not the result was successful, then Bush didn't even try to kill OBL, either. This was after he attacked NYC, mind you. But of course, he just 'wasn't that important' and GWB 'didn't think about him that much'
Why would you consider bombing an aspirin factory as an attempt at killing OBL? Also, according to your link, OBL didn't even do what Clinton accused him of. So, Clinton merely attacked a soveriegn nation without permission, killing more than a dozen innocent civilians. Good job Clinton!
Do you have any more that are actually attempts on OBL's life? Not some that are missions to stop training and aspirin manufacturing?
Hey foghorn. You skipped the important question; "How many more soldiers have to die in this illegal war (as you people put it)? Or, are you saying that this illegal war is no longer illegal, now that Obama is in charge?"
Well? Has this war suddenly become a legal one? Why aren't you whining about the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan now?
Iraq and Afghanistan are two separate fronts. If the threat of a terrorist attack against the USA exists it eminates from Afghanistan, not Iraq. The Taliban has reconstituted itself and reestablished control in some areas in Afghanistan and poppy growth is once again blooming. And then there are the autonomous regions of Pakistan harboring AlQaeda... Are you suggesting the war in Afghanistan is not legitimate and necessary?
The Iraq war is another story entirely...started on bogus grounds by George W. Bush under the prodding of Dick Cheney. Hasn't President Obama pledged to get us out? Isn't it true that removing all of our troops can't be accomplished responsibly in one quick action? Let's talk like adults, Phil...
Irony, how many homegrown Iraqi's are fighting (against us) in our war on terror in Iraq? I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard around 2% of all terrorists fighting us in Iraq are actually Iraqi. Is that number wrong? Please give me your version.
Now, going on the assumption that some terrorists (in Iraq) are not Iraqi, the war in Iraq is just another war against terrorism. It has been since Saddam was removed from power (with UN approval). Now how does one war on terrorism be illegal and another is legal? You claim our battle against the taliban is a legal war, yet claim OBL and al queda are the ones responsible for 9/11. How can our battle against terrorists not involved in 9/11 be legal in Afghanistan but not legal in Iraq?
"The Taliban has reconstituted itself and reestablished control in some areas in Afghanistan and poppy growth is once again blooming."
So, growing the plant, which BTW is the state flower in California, is now equal to the attacks made on 9/11 and deserving of sending American troops to stop? You say having American troops die while trying to stop the growth of a plant is more legal than removing a murderous dictator? I see why you chose that nickname.
You have reading comprehension problems. May I politely suggest a logic course at your local university, or a writing class? Americans aren't dying to stop poppy production, poppy production is Afghanistan's major export- and a lucrative one at that! Americans are there to... get... the... taliban!
Why the taliban? Wasn't it al queda who attacked the US? Why is attacking yet another country legal, but attacking Iraq is not? Mr1, you do remember who attacked us on 9/11, don't you? Was it the taliban?
All countries are not the same. Afghanistan was harboring Osama. Iraq was not.
Since you obviously CAN'T EVEN READ, I'll repeat my post:
In case you haven't noticed, Obama hasn't been in office for even a MONTH.
Even in baseball, the pitcher who leaves men on base is responsible for what they do after he's out of the game.
You beat me to it. It's like Obama is brought to the mound with the bases loaded and a ten-run deficit. If he walks a batter, the run is charged to Bush, gives up a 3-run triple, 3 runs charged to Bush.
In all the spare time you have, apparently none of it is watching baseball. The walked batter is the responsibility of the current pitcher (Obama), so the 3-run triple will bring in 2 runs charged to Bush while the third would be Obama's responsibility. When you try analogies like that, please have some knowledge concerning the topic within your analogy.
Speaking of word parsing!! I noticed you didn't address the crux of the analogy, which is, IS OBAMA ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE MESS HE HAS INHERITED FROM BUSH?
So, your explanation as to why Clinton is not responsible for OBL is what? Clinton left OBL on base.
Well, if you think 9 months is "left on base" you obviously blame Bush I for the first WTC attack, right? Way to go off-topic, do you only do it when you want to and scold others if they do?
"do you only do it when you want to and scold others if they do?"
Ah ah ah ha ha, am I getting to you? Umm, if you read the threads, irony is the one to take this part of it off-topic and into the 9/11 discussion.
"In November it was "hope" to point out our problems and say we can fix them, but now it's "doom" to point out our problems in order to figure out how to fix them."
In November, you were yelling "doom" from every housetop, in an effort to show how bad Bush has made things, then proclaimed "hope" from Obama. Now, you're saying yelling "doom" is bad and only "hope" is acceptable. What a hypocrit!
What the hell are you babbling about? I'm talking about the article. It's not "yelling doom" at all.
I'm babbling about your hypocrisy. Are you going to comment on that? Or totally ignore that you are being hypocritical.
There is no hypocrisy. I'm talking about the article's declaration of speaking of "doom". The whole narrative is idiotic. You discuss the situation honestly in order to get an accurate understanding in order to fix it. That was true before the election, and it's true now.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
Phlibber is not here to present a rational argument.
There is a video floating around the web of a monkey swinging from a tree, plucking at a lion's ears to irritate him. That's what Phlibber is doing.
Yes, but we still call it work. What is it you do all day? Wait, let me guess...read mmfa. I take it you support more government handouts that should keep you capable of continuing to do nothing but read mmfa.
You never need to post again. You've just described your whole act in two words.
"your hypocrisy"
And I described your act in the next two words.
I think it's good that only democrats are supporting this stimulus package. Especially after reading that billions will be wasted. I think it's good for the American public to KNOW who supported wasting billions and who doesn't. Once the package is approved by the democrats and we see the results, you will either have a new congress in another 1 1/2 years or we will continue with the current set-up. I predict a new congress. Democrats aren't very good at spending money wisely. As we see evidence of within this stimulus package.
You are silly, Democrats aren't very good at spending money? Where were you when shrub rang up 5 trillion in debt? To say you are full of it is an understatement.
"Where were you when shrub rang up 5 trillion in debt?"
I was watching democrats approve the debt increases. How about you?
What are you doing as Obama rings up another $5 tillion in debt? No complaints about that? I didn't think so.
Who controlled Congress through most of the Shrubs reign of terror? Yeah, that's what I thought, it's tough being a repug isn't it?
But, you have nothing to say about Obama raising the debt another $5 trillion?
BTW, I don't know how it is to be a republican. I'm not one, I'm an independant conservative. Liberals and republicans don't know what it means to be independant. But, they are good at parroting talking points without proof.
Independent? Independent of what? Decisions have to be made, choices have consequences. Sorry but independent is not deciding one way or the other, therefore you don't count in the debate.
"Decisions have to be made, choices have consequences."
So, the consequence of Obama raising the debt to $10 trillion is ok with you? But, Bush decision to raise it to $5 trillion is despicible? That sounds very hypocritical, to me. You are a liberal, aren't you? Then that is to be expected.
What are the consequences of doing nothing? Sorry is Herbert Hoover is a hero of yours but the adults want to fix this mess and move on with life.
I believe Bush raised it by five trillion to ten trillion.
But, you don't know what we're talking about. National debt or public debt? Which one are you talking about?
National debt. What numbers are you citing?
What was the national debt when Clinton left office? I thought you people brag about him leaving the bugdet at a surplus, now you claim he left the deficit at $5 trillion? Make up your dang minds as to what you claim Clinton did!!!
If you don't know what we are talking about, why are you even in the discussion?
Seems like you're shifting the debate. You said Obama was going to make the deficit 10 trillion. It's already 10 trillion, doubled by Bush. It seems clear you were talking about the national debt. If not, then tell me what numbers you were citing.
Obama is ringing up another 5 trillion in debt? Quit pulling figures out of thin air.
Phil, were you against the Bush tax cuts when we went to war? Did you protest the fiscal irresponsibility of increasing taxes at a time when spending would have to soar with two wars? Was cutting taxes then an act of wasting billions by growing our deficit?
Sorry, friedboy, I can't comment on off-topic statements. Try to stay on-topic for a change.
In other words, "I got nuthin".
Phil,
We are talking the consequences of spending in a deficit and why you think we should be up in arms about Obama's spending decisions. Since you are a critic of this idea of spending money we don't have, I thought I would ask you about decreasing revenue (taxes) at a time when we were increasing spending (war) and would appreciate your comments on that issue when a Republican spent money he did not have. That is all.
What will be the consequences of spending on 2 wars and spending on rebuilding infrastructure and creating a new health care system and creating a new educational system and saving the financial system and saving all the broke states and doing all this without raising taxes, but by strictly borrowing from future generations?
Isn't that Obama's plan? Oh, and let's borrow the money needed from our grandchildren. They won't mind. What money does Obama have that he is spending?
Phil,
Please answer my question, were you angry with Bush when he lowered taxes while waging two wars and borrowing the money from our grandchildren?
Other than the ones you use to attempt to derail a discussion, of course.
"I predict a new congress."
Me too philib....
I see an even larger majority in the House for the Democrats in 2010...
And i see a 65-68 seat advantage for the Democrats in the Senate as well in 2010...
I also predict at least 1 possibly 2 new liberal/centrist type judges in the Supreme Court over the next 8 years....
Which means I also predict Obama being relected!
As long as the Republican party keeps going down the road they have been traveling as you seem to hope they keep doing... this is exactly what will happen!
"Democrats aren't very good at spending money wisely."
Oh yeah Carmine.... who told you this? Rush? BillO? Newt? My question to you is.... compared to whom? Republicans?
The Republitoads are floating a new talking point this morning; I heard it on Morning Joe, repeated several times.
Their knew angle is that Obama is "continuing the reckless spending policies of George W. Bush." WTF? This from the same people who rubber stamped everything President Numbnuts shoved under their noses.
It's getting ridiculous out there.
Are you insulted because Obama promises to do the same thing as Bush? Or, are you insulted because he told you he would? Let's see, democrats control the house and senate (and have for a couple years). WHO was "rubber stamping" everything Bush put in front of them?
And who controlled it for the other six years of Bush's junta?
Not all spending is created equal, Phlibber. Which is more wasteful, spending 9 billion on teachers, or "misplacing" 9 billion in Iraq? Gee, I just don't know....
Which is more successful, teaching children in America or allowing indescriminant murder of innocent children in Iraq? Gee, you probably just don't know that either...
Which has what to do with the question I put to you? How do you define "success" when it comes to mass murder? Who killed more Iraqi children, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein? What does that have to do with wasteful spending or the definition of pork?
"What does that have to do with wasteful spending or the definition of pork?"
Who cares. That's not what I asked you anyway. But, you convientiantly ignored my questions while demand that I answer yours.
As for who killed more Iraqi children, you left out terrorists. But maybe you don't think there are terrorists in the world. So the answer would be Saddam.
Are you sure? Can you prove that?
Yes, Yes. But, if you include terrorists, then Saddam would not be the bearer of that title.
Proof?
Don't hold your breath waiting for proof. The only proof he has experience with is 90 proof.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2007/
2007- 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Of those; 800 are attributed to American forces (up from 600 in 06), (88 child deaths are blamed on American forces). Of those 30,000 I would imagine more than 88 are children. That would mean terrorists are responsible for the 30,000 civilians being killed. So, perhaps Saddam hasn't killed as many, lately, as terrorists have. How many hundreds of thousands did Saddam kill? Nobody knows, but I'll be sure to check on it. This thread will be closed by then, so you'll have to do with the data I did bring.
Here's a novel proposal that I saw on another site this morning. If the Republitoad Senators are so concerned about the "pork" going to the states, let the senators who oppose it cut the money that has been allocated to their particular states.
Since there are 38-40 senators who oppose all this "pork", just think how much that would trim from the bill. Then they could go back and stand for re-election in their states with their principles intact.
Everybody wins.
That would be a good idea, but democrats would never make a promise like that. They will never give up on the pork they've earned over the years. So, while it would be good for America and everyone would win if that happened, unfortunately, democrats are in control of what is on that stimulus package...not republicans.
Do you really think repug senators care about anything except their own reelection?
Honestly? No. But, neither do demoncats.
Big difference, Democrats care about people, repugs care about rich people.
Which people do the demoncats care about? The elderly that they want euthanasia rights for? Unborn human babies that they demand the right to kill indescriminantly? Convicted murders and rapists?
Who do Democrats care about?
Children (SCHIP), everyone who breathes (real clean air laws, not reducing toxins in the air), women and their access to equal pay in the workforce even if they don't notice the discrepancies with their male counterparts right away (Ledbetter Act) and that's just in the first two weeks.
Should we go historically or just Obama?
Gee, I didn't realize you were so supportive of equal rights for women in the workplace. Uhhh, how many 'sets' do women play in the US Open tennis championship? Are they working equally to men? You are such a whiner.
The U.S. Open is your rebuttal? I agree that if the U.S. Open Tennis Tournament decided that it wanted to pay women less based on their fewer sets of tennis that would be ok, but I don't agree with limiting a woman's right to receive equal pay for equal work in the corporate workplace by a statute of limitations she might not be aware of. Where in my post did you see me whine?
And, you know, the WPFL pays a lot less than the NFL. There's your proof that Democrats don't care about women.
So, you're saying that the workplace can be unequal as long as the women doesn't know it's unequal? What a whiner you are!
When did I say that? You made the argument in tennis that men play more and should get paid more. I said that would work for me. That argument is not based on gender, but amount of work done.
If they do the same work, they should get the same pay. If they don't realize they are being cheated, they should have redress when they find out whenever that may be. How is that whining?
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a post sneer so derisively about getting rights to people who don't have them.
I am completely supportive of equal rights for women in the workplace. Tell me precisely why I shouldn't be.
Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points: Pause: Rewind: Repeat Talking Points:
There, see? We all knew you could admit your philosophy.
We all know you couldn't recognize yours.
Wow, decafinate your coffee before it's too late. Your statements are incredibly repug yet you are a self proclaimed independent.....right.
Phlibber's brain is on Troglodyte Override this morning. He's answering questions with preprogrammed Republican talking points.
"democrats are in control of what is on that stimulus package...not republicans."
Then why is it 40% tax cuts? The Republitards could stop it with a filibuster if they really wanted to. They're just posturing in the hopes that it will fail and they can use it in 2010 to take back the House.
One reason can be because the democrats have not told the American public what is in the pork-laden stimulus package. All they hear is Obama yelling to "pass it quickly" and "time to talk is over, time for action is now". So, the democrats want the bill passed without any disclosure, but you think I'm over-reacting to spending more money?
No, I think you're just repeating Rush Limbaugh's bullsh*t.
Exactly how is this being passed without "disclosure"?
Show me that 40% of the stimulus package are tax-cuts. Bring proof to your insane claims. Show me that demoncats are not trying to get $300 billion of this as pork spending initiatives. Prove to all Americans that this stimulus package is entirely stimulant.
Oh?...can't prove ANY of that? Go figure.
Here you go, Phlibber:
"As part of the deal, spending in the bill was reduced while tax cuts were increased, for a mix of 58 percent spending and 42 percent tax cuts."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/06/senators-reach-tentative-deal-b-economic-stimulus/
nerz,
i think you made philibs head explode.
You use Faux news as your proof? Come on. Get a real news source. How much of Faux news did you believe and report as fact before you found one that supported your stance?
Hey, wait a minute. Didn't the republicans raise the tax cuts and lower spending? Are you sure you want to use that site as proof of democratic spending decisions?
Here's an idea.... find a source that you trust which proves that it is not 40% tax cuts, and get back to us.
Or, go soak your head... I don't really care.
I couldn't stand it past the first few. Did Phlibby get any closer to a coherent thought in his last 50 comments?
No, he's just here to pester us.
Yeah. Why have discussions on events that will affect our nation. After all 'the time to talk is past, now it is time for action'. Anyone remember who said that? Wait...who said it first? Hint: Bush-related to attacking Saddam, then Obama related to attacking America.
Unlike Barney, who's paid by the word, Philb is paid for each post.
If he's paid for coherence, he's starving.
nookyooluar mushroom-cloud lies, good.
telling the american people that the repubs have tanked the economy "doom talk"!
when reagan or bush defecit spends, good.
when dems defecit spend its creeping socialism!
hypocrisy, its whats for breakfast.
You know I'm not actually all that crazy about the urgent tone Obama has been taking either. Sounds a lot like Dubya in a way. But he has been much more open to debate on the stimulus package than the previous administration ever was about anything. I don't recall anyone saying these doom scenarios were unpresidential when Bush was doing it though.
Dick Cheney is still doing it...and he was President, too, wasn't he? ;>)
Just find it funny that MMFA never came here to help President Bush when the media was doing the same to him. MMFA - Hypocrites,
You show'em, never post again, then they'll be sorry.
Really? When was that? When Bush was lying about Iraq? When Bush was lying about Valerie Plame? When Bush was lying about warrantless wiretapping?
What, exactly, did the Media "do" to President Numbnuts, besides give him a free ride?
Really? You find that funny? Ok.
What happened, is FreeRepublic on the fritz or something? So many cons today.
When Ronald Reagan became president things were much worse than they are today. We were waiting on line for gas and could only get gas if your plate had an odd or even number. The interest rates were 21 percent. Unemployment was in double digits and inflation was out of control.
Yet whenever Reagan spoke to the country, he made you feel like evrything was going to be allright. He never gave a doomsday scenario. He was always positive and made you love this country when he spoke.
When President Obama mentions fatty limbaugh he does not sound presidential. When he says I WON, taht does not sound like a statesman speaking. The President is supposed to make his citizens feel like we can do anything together as a people no matter how bad things may seem. He should not be scaring the country with his doom and gloom.
I really think the country deserves an accounting of the 350 billion dollars we already doled out that has done nothing to help the economy even though we were told if we didn't give out this TARP money our country would collapse. We should proceed with caution before we give the government permission to spend this kind of money.
he made you feel like evrything was going to be allright
That's neo-con logic in a nutshell. The world is going down the crapper, but as long as the fearless leader says everything is going to be all right, well by golly then everything is going to be all right because the fearless leader said so!
He should not be scaring the country with his doom and gloom.
Guess what - now people are REALLY scared, not that "fake" scared of the mushroom clouds and bio-weapons that Saddam was going to send over here on an hour's notice. No - this is about jobs, welfare, life and death. Funny how the wingnuts cry "No more doom and gloom, Mr. Obama", when in reality, there is something out there to be gloomy about!!!
He should not be scaring the country with his doom and gloom. fishergirl
OK, so where were you when Bush and Co. were scaring the entire country with Jack Bauer scenerios to justify illegal torture and wholesale wiretapping of innocent american citizens?
Waiting in line for gas? I assume you have google and now would be a good time to use because your grasp of history is completely wrong. Did you even have a drivers license back when Rayguns was elected?
How old are you? I was in college during Reagan's first term. Nobody was waiting on line for gas, and you could buy gas every day of the week, regardless of what your licence plate number was. You are an amazingly bad liar. Why didn't you mention the paper and glass drives and bringing walnuts to school to be used in gas masks provided to our boys on the Western Front, for Christ's Sake?
What a moron.
a year or two before Reagan became president we were waiting on line for gas. you were only allowed to get gas if your licensre plates were odd or even. I remember Pres. Carter giving a speech in a sweater setting an example of turning our thermostats down. You mean you don't remeber this??? We had people being held hostage in Iran also.
The point was that President Reagan despite the muck we were in, always made you feel proud to be an American. He made you believe what a great people we were, and how if we stuck together and let the American people be innovative, nothing could stop us.
I remeber watching my fellow citizens jump out of the world trade center and citizens being anthraxed as well as our Senate. We were attacked on our own soil,lest we forget. I hope none of us ever live to see that again.
Maybe we wouldn't have been attacked on 9-11 if President Bush hadn't been preoccupied with things like ending the inheritance tax on the children of the rich.
"The point was that President Reagan despite the muck we were in, always made you feel proud to be an American. He made you believe what a great people we were, and how if we stuck together and let the American people be innovative, nothing could stop us."
As opposed to who? The whole point of "yes we can" is "yes we can". That's the whole point, that no matter how big the problem is, we can overcome it. It also strikes me that Obama's rhetoric was something Obama was criticized for during the campaign, that he made inspirational speeches and made people feel good, but there was nothing behind it. But now that he's in charge and talking about policy, people just want to be inspired.
What does 9/11 or the anthrax attacks have to do with anything?
Your brain is a regular disaster area. There were no gas lines "a year or two before Reagan became President"- there were gas lines in 1973-75, when Nixon and Ford were President- but I'm sure that the fact that they were Republicans has nothing to do with your "mistake."
"I remember Pres. Carter giving a speech wearing a sweater..." I remember that- I won't say I remember that too, because I strongly suspect that what you "remember" is what you heard Hannity say about Carter giving a speech in a sweater.
"We had people being held hostage in Iran too." Yes we did. POINT, PLEASE??? During Reagan's term we traded arms for hostages. Proud of that, are we?
"I remember watching my fellow citizens jump out of the world trade center blah blah distract blow smoke create straw man distract blow smoke blah blah blah....we were attacked on our own soil lest we forget...."
Please, get some freaking help. Your brain is seriously scrambled. It's really not a good idea to try to digest more than an hour or so of right wing radio a day, you are a prime example of what it does to the thought process. I'm surprised you didn't mention Pearl Harbor, the McCarthy Hearings and the Falklands Island crisis since you seem to think that everything that happened in history is somehow connected. Call your therapist. NOW.
Look, the Reagan campaign of 1980 actively colluded with the Iranian government to keep the Americans as hostages. They worked overtime to prevent the release of 52 US Citizens being held against their will because the campaign people decided that allowing the hostages to remain in captivity would aid their candidate. I can't imagine anything more corrupt and cynical, except after Reagan was elected, when he traded arms for hostages. What was the result? Every hostage that was released resulted in the taking of another one as a replacement. These fu**ing people of the Reagan administration were the ultimate PR machine -- their actions NEVER matched their words. Not on hostages. Not on dealing with terrorists. Not on tax cuts. Not on reduced spending. Not on balanced budgets. They weren't consistent on ANYTHING for eight years!
And you know why there weren't gas lines under Carter? because people heeded his advice and guidance and personal example -- different home heating sources besides oil, turning down thermostats and otherwise saving energy, smaller cars to increase gas mileage, car pools, more use of public transportation. The gas lines went away because the demand for oil went down thanks to Carter, which also made the price of oil fall -- Reagan used THAT effect to his benefit in faking an economic expansion in the 1980s.