(01-31-2009 12:08 PM)Nigel Incubator-Jones Wrote:  As a historical Republican voter I will say directly the Republican party is in shatters. And it is doubtful it will be able to get its act together anytime soon. The party allowed itself to be lead by the lunatic fringe and forgot the principles of Ronald Reagan completely. Fact is government spending and the deficit exploded under the supposed fiscal conservative George W. Bush. And everytime Rush Limbaugh opens his big fat belligerent mouth he sets the cause of the Republican party back another 10 paces.

Like I said before, I didn't vote for Barack Obama. But I shall support him and reserve judgment until a couple years down the road. Lord knows he has a monstrous task in front of him.

As a fiscal conservative and more of a libertarian, I tend to vote republican candidates are not fiscal conservatives anymore. Our economy has been in a funk for years and all of a sudden, we need to have a trillion dollar pork package they call a stimulus package.

(01-31-2009 08:36 AM)niubrad00 Wrote:  

(01-30-2009 10:28 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  Seriously, and I'm saying this without any intended exaggeration at all - this is RIDICULOUS. Can Obama appoint anyone who doesn't have some sort of issue? And Congress apparently is going to go along with it. This is why I'd ALWAYS rather have the President be the opposite party than Congress. When it comes to government, gridlock is good - it's actually the way our founding fathers intended it to be. Why should the average American think they should have to pay their taxes when these supposedly incredible performers (Congress claims both are the "best person" in all of America - as if in a country of 300 million anyone can truly be the single "best person" at anything - unless it is a truly unique skill - and neither running the treasury or health care reform require such) don't bother to do it. And you KNOW they probably never would have paid if they weren't under the confirmation spotlights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_o...chle_taxes

I agree. This country is a joke. You should move to Sweden.

So, again, I simply state a fact - including a supporting news link - and I'm told to move to Sweden. Your an @sshole.

(01-31-2009 12:38 PM)NIUtrav09 Wrote:  

(01-26-2009 12:56 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  Hey - all of you who were bashing Palin for her clothes - why aren't you bashing Michele Obama for her $12,000 earrings she got last year (she returned the $5,000 earrings Barry had given her because apparently they weren't nice enough for her).

Doesn't anyone think it hypocritical that a President who, just back in 2004 when his household adjusted gross income was $207,647 gave only $2,500 to charity, yet wants to spend OUR tax dollars to give people who don't even pay taxes a bigger "refund"???? Interesting how Obama wants to put OUR money where HIS mouth is. See this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/pol...f=politics

oh shut the **** up.

Sorry needed to get that off my chest

Well then, let me get this off MY chest - you're an @sshole! I simply am reporting facts - and including a link to a news article to back it up, and that's the response I get. How to you eat with Obama's d!cK stuck in your mouth???? Don't read this thread if you're not interested.

(01-31-2009 10:56 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Tom Daschle has tax problems too.

That's what the article at the link is about.

(01-26-2009 12:56 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  Hey - all of you who were bashing Palin for her clothes - why aren't you bashing Michele Obama for her $12,000 earrings she got last year (she returned the $5,000 earrings Barry had given her because apparently they weren't nice enough for her).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/pol...f=politics

This article is from almost a year ago. Want some cheese with that whine?

And guess what, the difference is the Obamas spent their OWN money. The controversy in Palins case was she had her warddrobe furnished by the RNC.

(01-31-2009 12:38 PM)NIUtrav09 Wrote:  

(01-26-2009 12:56 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  Hey - all of you who were bashing Palin for her clothes - why aren't you bashing Michele Obama for her $12,000 earrings she got last year (she returned the $5,000 earrings Barry had given her because apparently they weren't nice enough for her).

Doesn't anyone think it hypocritical that a President who, just back in 2004 when his household adjusted gross income was $207,647 gave only $2,500 to charity, yet wants to spend OUR tax dollars to give people who don't even pay taxes a bigger "refund"???? Interesting how Obama wants to put OUR money where HIS mouth is. See this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/pol...f=politics

oh shut the **** up.


Sorry needed to get that off my chest

In your rating of me you say "it's hard to make a discussion with my ridiculous comments." Exactly which part of the above is ridiculous?????? Or are you just a liar too?

(02-01-2009 11:12 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(01-26-2009 12:56 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  Hey - all of you who were bashing Palin for her clothes - why aren't you bashing Michele Obama for her $12,000 earrings she got last year (she returned the $5,000 earrings Barry had given her because apparently they weren't nice enough for her).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/pol...f=politics

This article is from almost a year ago. Want some cheese with that whine?

And guess what, the difference is the Obamas spent their OWN money. The controversy in Palins case was she had her warddrobe furnished by the RNC.

The point is, Obama is VERY willing to give away our hard earned money, yet chooses to spend HIS money on $12,000 earrings for his wife. If he's so worried about the poor why doesn't he take that $12K and give it to them instead?????

(02-01-2009 03:18 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 11:12 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(01-26-2009 12:56 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  Hey - all of you who were bashing Palin for her clothes - why aren't you bashing Michele Obama for her $12,000 earrings she got last year (she returned the $5,000 earrings Barry had given her because apparently they weren't nice enough for her).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/pol...f=politics

This article is from almost a year ago. Want some cheese with that whine?

And guess what, the difference is the Obamas spent their OWN money. The controversy in Palins case was she had her warddrobe furnished by the RNC.

The point is, Obama is VERY willing to give away our hard earned money, yet chooses to spend HIS money on $12,000 earrings for his wife. If he's so worried about the poor why doesn't he take that $12K and give it to them instead?????

Am I missing the part where Obama is exempt from paying taxes as well?

I am fully enjoying in an evil way the misery of those who pile on about little or nothing re: Obama's alleged failures.

It's rather hysterical to me the detractors and haters devote time and energy scrutinizing most every word, deed or omission of the President less than 30 days into office.

Perhaps they listen to Limbaugh and watch FOX & Sean 24-7.

It sorta confirms changing how business is conducted in DC will not change nor go away easily.

PS: Being the political cynic I am, it does not surprse me Obama shared his support for Pittsburg - located in a state where his election hung in balance, where he received negative campaign coverage for his careless remark in LA and a state he would need again in 2012.

(02-01-2009 04:50 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  I am fully enjoying the msiery of those who pile on about little or nothing re: Obama's alleged failures.

It's rather hysterical to me the detractors and haters devote time and energy scrutininzing most every word, deed or omission of the President less than 30 days into office.

Perhaps they listen to Limbaugh and watch FOX & Sean 24-7.

That might give you a little insight as to what people on the other side have faced since Bush took office. People make it their sole role in life to bring someone down, plenty out there did that with Bush, very sad thing to see, especially with the media getting involved in it. The only thing I respect less than a crooked politician is a biased media member.

Whether Bush or Obama or Hillary Clinton or John McCain, the approach our government is taking to solve the economic problems will not work. The Pork(stimulus) package will add to the debt and not create more jobs. Our countries debt is growing at a rapid rate and this will be our demise unless we change our spending habits(including government). Actually, I read where credit card debt is down(see consumer spending down). Now our government wants to strap us with 1 trillion dollars in additional debt. We, as a nation, have been spending like drunken sailors and we are starting to see the results.

(02-01-2009 04:57 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 04:50 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  I am fully enjoying the msiery of those who pile on about little or nothing re: Obama's alleged failures.

It's rather hysterical to me the detractors and haters devote time and energy scrutininzing most every word, deed or omission of the President less than 30 days into office.

Perhaps they listen to Limbaugh and watch FOX & Sean 24-7.

That might give you a little insight as to what people on the other side have faced since Bush took office. People make it their sole role in life to bring someone down, plenty out there did that with Bush, very sad thing to see, especially with the media getting involved in it. The only thing I respect less than a crooked politician is a biased media member.

Where's the bias??? Geithner didn't pay his taxes and now either did Daschel. Obama toots his horn - loudly - about his standards for ethics and two DAYS later has to get a waiver to put a lobbyist as second in command of the Department of Defense (not to mention Bill Richardson). Those are FACTS - period. And what does it matter if he does these things in the first week, month, year, or if it was in the 100th week, or second term. The FACT is these guys either shouldn't have been nominated in the first place if the Obama administration knew about this stuff, or support for them should have been withdrawn once it was known. It wasn't. Again - all facts. Please explain where media bias comes in on ANY issue I have raised in this thread. (Don't waste your time - you can't.) I'm no more anti-Obama than I am anti-Bush. I don't like bad government - period. I don't care which side of the aisle a politician is from - if they are good they're good, and if bad they are bad. Bush was clearly bad - I think that is essentially a fact at this point as even his most loyal followers only disagree on to what extent he was bad and point on some of the good he did, and Obama has made a string of bad nominations so far.

(01-25-2009 11:13 PM)NIU Chicago Wrote:  

(01-25-2009 08:20 AM)niubrad00 Wrote:  

(01-25-2009 01:24 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  It's not even been a week, and we see Obama for the terrible President he is. Any of you Obama Kool Aid drinkers, can you really, in full honesty, defend any of the below? On top of this, for two of his executive orders issued this week, at the signing when describing them to the press, he had to turn to his counsel and ask for clarification about what was in them; why doesn't OBAMA know that????


1) Obama claims he wants an Attorney General who is willing to "say no" to the President, yet he is nominating Eric Holder, who is the lawyer who signed off on Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich.  It appears Holder wouldn't say "no" to the President then - why would we expect now to be different?  Here's the article:

http://lostintransition.nationaljournal....deBlogs=49

2) Obama want to appoint Timothy Geithner as the Secretary of the Treasury, but Geithner 
"didn't pay all of his federal taxes for years. Then, after Obama decided to name him Treasury secretary, the president-elect's vetting team discovered Geithner's little oversight" and then he finally paid up.  Is the IRS going to be so lenient on Joe Blow under Geithner?  I'd cut him some slack if it were any other position - but this guy is going to be over the IRS!  Here's an article re: this issue:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/...18.article

3) He doesn't even abide by his own made up “anti-lobbying rules.” Two days after introducing what he heralded as the most sweeping ethics rules in American history -- ones that would "close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely" -- President Barack Obama today waived those rules for his nominee for Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn.

4) Names Leon Panetta to head CIA – a man who has no CIA experience.

OK we get it. You're a hard core Republican and are brainwashed to hate everything that everyone with a (D) next to their name does. Now go away and continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh's BS.

I know RB and he is not a hard core Republican by any means. he beat up on Bush all the time.

I like the way you wacko libs always say that someone listens to Rush just because they have a different point of view.

Go listen to CNN

Please! Watch CNN. They need viewers, as their ratings have been suffering so long, in comparison to Fox News. If things keep going this way, CNN might need a government bailout too.

(02-01-2009 04:50 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  I am fully enjoying in an evil way the misery of those who pile on about little or nothing re: Obama's alleged failures.

It's rather hysterical to me the detractors and haters devote time and energy scrutinizing most every word, deed or omission of the President less than 30 days into office.

Perhaps they listen to Limbaugh and watch FOX & Sean 24-7.

It sorta confirms changing how business is conducted in DC will not change nor go away easily.

PS: Being the political cynic I am, it does not surprse me Obama shared his support for Pittsburg - located in a state where his election hung in balance, where he received negative campaign coverage for his careless remark in LA and a state he would need again in 2012.

I love the simpletons like you who always have to say anyone who isn't a far left wacko listens to Fox all the time.

Well CNN and MSNBC are 10x farther left than Fox is right. Chris Matthews actually said that "I get a tingly feeling in my legs when Obama talks" WOW that is biased.

Fox offers people from the other side on virtually every show - CNN & MSNBC act like they are pure but Oberman & Matthews plus the rest are far far left.

BO has made promises that he is different and change would come - that is ALL he ran his campaign on - and now he is as bad as anyone. What are we suppose to do, ignore all his hypocrisy for the next 6 months?

From CNN - so we know they aren't bashing Obama just for fun:

"Obama: 'I screwed up' on Daschle appointment"

So, Obama defends the Daschle appointment until he puts his finger in the wind and realizes what a hypocrite he was being - especially on top of the Geithner appointment (why doesn't he admit that's a screwup too???). What a leader!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/03/o...index.html

I think Obama is finding out that being the President is tough. Three of his nominees have tax issues. No lobbyists in government but its ok for the two he needs in his department.

(02-03-2009 08:54 PM)klake87 Wrote:  I think Obama is finding out that being the President is tough. Three of his nominees have tax issues. No lobbyists in government but its ok for the two he needs in his department.

I just looked up "hypocrite" in the dictionary and found a huge picture of Barry O'Bama!!!

(02-03-2009 05:52 PM)NIU Chicago Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 04:50 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  I am fully enjoying in an evil way the misery of those who pile on about little or nothing re: Obama's alleged failures.

It's rather hysterical to me the detractors and haters devote time and energy scrutinizing most every word, deed or omission of the President less than 30 days into office.

Perhaps they listen to Limbaugh and watch FOX & Sean 24-7.

It sorta confirms changing how business is conducted in DC will not change nor go away easily.

PS: Being the political cynic I am, it does not surprse me Obama shared his support for Pittsburg - located in a state where his election hung in balance, where he received negative campaign coverage for his careless remark in LA and a state he would need again in 2012.

I love the simpletons like you who always have to say anyone who isn't a far left wacko listens to Fox all the time.

Well CNN and MSNBC are 10x farther left than Fox is right. Chris Matthews actually said that "I get a tingly feeling in my legs when Obama talks" WOW that is biased.

Fox offers people from the other side on virtually every show - CNN & MSNBC act like they are pure but Oberman & Matthews plus the rest are far far left.

BO has made promises that he is different and change would come - that is ALL he ran his campaign on - and now he is as bad as anyone. What are we suppose to do, ignore all his hypocrisy for the next 6 months?

Why the next 6 months?

Making bad decisions isn't necessarily being hypocritical. We'll see if he can keep his word by saying this won't happen again. The research is going to have to be much more thorough. I just don't understand how the tax issues and other issues aren't known before he selects them for the cabinet. These are elected Senators/politicians and these issues aren't known? WTF?

(02-04-2009 11:36 AM)NIU17 Wrote:  

(02-03-2009 05:52 PM)NIU Chicago Wrote:  

(02-01-2009 04:50 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  I am fully enjoying in an evil way the misery of those who pile on about little or nothing re: Obama's alleged failures.

It's rather hysterical to me the detractors and haters devote time and energy scrutinizing most every word, deed or omission of the President less than 30 days into office.

Perhaps they listen to Limbaugh and watch FOX & Sean 24-7.

It sorta confirms changing how business is conducted in DC will not change nor go away easily.

PS: Being the political cynic I am, it does not surprse me Obama shared his support for Pittsburg - located in a state where his election hung in balance, where he received negative campaign coverage for his careless remark in LA and a state he would need again in 2012.

I love the simpletons like you who always have to say anyone who isn't a far left wacko listens to Fox all the time.

Well CNN and MSNBC are 10x farther left than Fox is right. Chris Matthews actually said that "I get a tingly feeling in my legs when Obama talks" WOW that is biased.

Fox offers people from the other side on virtually every show - CNN & MSNBC act like they are pure but Oberman & Matthews plus the rest are far far left.

BO has made promises that he is different and change would come - that is ALL he ran his campaign on - and now he is as bad as anyone. What are we suppose to do, ignore all his hypocrisy for the next 6 months?

Why the next 6 months?

Making bad decisions isn't necessarily being hypocritical. We'll see if he can keep his word by saying this won't happen again. The research is going to have to be much more thorough. I just don't understand how the tax issues and other issues aren't known before he selects them for the cabinet. These are elected Senators/politicians and these issues aren't known? WTF?

17 you missed my point - Cybes was saying how dare we question the great & wise BO since he has been in office less than 30 days.

I was asking him how long we could wait.

Obama is totally inconsistent re: this whole tax thing - why does he now put his finger in the wind and say it was a mistake with Daschle, but not admit Geithner was a mistake too?? Geithner is a MUCH bigger mistake in my opinion, because you are putting this guy in charge of the IRS. How credible can you find the guy???