NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep, that's right... We've got him shaking in his boots -- shoes.
From the AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_7),

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama convenes his first formal Cabinet meeting Monday and will ask department and agency chiefs to look for ways over the next 90 days to cut $100 million out of the federal budget, a senior administration official said.

That ought to just about do it. This is certainly how he intends to keep the promise to halve the deficit to $500 billion by 2012.

Wait, did he say Million? Why he sure did! That's about 0.0000111 percent of the $9.3 Trillion in deficits that the CBO expects him to add by 2018. Maybe he doesn't get it after all.

So?

Hooray, Obama is making small cosmetic cuts in government spending! I feel like I can relate to him now.

Someone doesn't understand the purpose of countercyclical spending...

The tea parties were about deficit reduction? Easy way to get serious about that: raise taxes.

Should Obama pay more for getting tea-bagged?

The tea parties were about deficit reduction? Easy way to get serious about that: raise taxes.

Well, I am for a massive cut in spending and taxes, but I think it is more important to cut spending than taxes right now. I am not fooled by the stupid Reagan idea of: less taxing means the Government will spend less; this why I kept my distance from the tea-party whiners. However, if there was ever a protest that was actually dedicated to fixing the deficit, I would support it.

So?

I think that is a fine use of the word.

Ouch. That's like getting bribed a dollar - it would have been less insulting to have been offered nothing.

Well, I am for a massive cut in spending and taxes, but I think it is more important to cut spending than taxes right now. I am not fooled by the stupid Reagan idea of: less taxing means the Government will spend less; this why I kept my distance from the tea-party whiners. However, if there was ever a protest that was actually dedicated to fixing the deficit, I would support it.
The Concord Coalition don't really do protests, but they are having a "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour" (http://www.concordcoalition.org/act/fiscal-wake-tour/schedule) at the moment; maybe you could see if they have any events near where you live?

That said, why do you think the deficit is of sufficient concern that it warrants spending cuts?

I think that is a fine use of the word.

Thank you.

The Concord Coalition don't really do protests, but they are having a "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour" (http://www.concordcoalition.org/act/fiscal-wake-tour/schedule) at the moment; maybe you could see if they have any events near where you live?

It looks like they are a while away, but I definitely support the cause.

That said, why do you think the deficit is of sufficient concern that it warrants spending cuts?

Yes. Or at least not the increase that Obama is speaking of.

Someone doesn't understand the purpose of countercyclical spending...

amongst other things

Ouch. That's like getting bribed a dollar - it would have been less insulting to have been offered nothing.

Good news! It has nothing to do with the tea baggers so it is offering them nothing.

A second senior official, also speaking anonymously, said Obama will point to cuts already being proposed.

It's been the plan before anyone laid any astroturf. And, from the article, it seems like shit that should have been done a long fucking time ago:
The Veterans Affairs Department has canceled or delayed 26 conferences, saving nearly $17.8 million, he noted, and will be using less expensive alternatives, like video conferencing. The Agriculture Department is working to combine 1,500 employees from seven office locations into a single facility in 2011 - saving $62 million over a 15-year lease term. And the Homeland Security Department has estimated it can save up to $52 million over five years by purchasing office supplies in bulk.
Seriously? "Hey, you know you can buy pens in bulk?"

The teabaggers can pretend that they did this, but it's sort of like yelling out whatever your dog is currently doing and pretending that you trained him to do that.

amongst other things

I'd be happy if we could just get them to understand that

Good news! It has nothing to do with the tea baggers so it is offering them nothing.



It's been the plan before anyone laid any astroturf. And, from the article, it seems like shit that should have been done a long fucking time ago:

Seriously? "Hey, you know you can buy pens in bulk?"

The teabaggers can pretend that they did this, but it's sort of like yelling out whatever your dog is currently doing and pretending that you trained him to do that.
Point is that this is insignificant. It's like a family with an income of $100,000 facing a $33,000 shortfall. The answer is to cut back $3. The other $32,997 can be charged on a credit card and worried about next year.

An amusing attempt by the "protestors" to simultaniously act smug as if they accomplished something, and offended that they didn't get what they want. Of course, since this was in the works beforehand, eventually they'll have to live with the actual truth.

They accomplished nothing at all.

Point is that this is insignificant. It's like a family with an income of $100,000 facing a $33,000 shortfall. The answer is to cut back $3. The other $32,997 can be charged on a credit card and worried about next year.

So, then...because it doesn't cure the deficit the office of Homeland Security shouldn't but their office products in bulk...?

So, then...because it doesn't cure the deficit the office of Homeland Security shouldn't but their office products in bulk...?
It's too trivial to say yes or no from a financial point of view. How they can avoid buying in bulk, already, is hard to understand. Does each person fill out expense reports for office supplies?

while I do agree that every little helps *smacks a young moms bottom to hear the change rattle*

I do have to question why all of a sudden Obama can find $100 million to cut, I mean don't they have people keeping on eye on spending and such?

So, then...because it doesn't cure the deficit the office of Homeland Security shouldn't but their office products in bulk...?

have you ever worked in an office that had huge bulk supplies of equipment? the mount of theft in marker pens alone will be far more than any deficit

A few thoughts on this.

Obama has been talking for a while about cutting wasteful spending in the budget (for example, go look at the agenda that was posted on the white house page after the election). I doubt this has anything to do with the "Tea Parties".

There are two separate issues here. The first is whether or not it is appropriate to run up deficits as a response to a recessionary economy, the second is what type of spending you should have. The public works project that digs a hole then fills it
in is an example. It would cause an increase in GDP, but, I doubt anybody would seriously argue it helps the economy.

A lot of government spending in the US is allocated via earmarks and the like. There is only so much you can gain out of trying to find administrative efficiencies which is more like what he seems to be doing here. Meaningful cuts would come from reining in the pork that gets doled out by both sides of the aisle. That requires a lot more than finger wagging at a president (past or present) for political points.

Any leader that could reduce the deficit by 50% and help pull the nation out of the current recession all within 4 years would be a god. It's dificult to invest in a nation and stop spending money all at the same time. I'll take any improvement.

Remember kids...

It's only a small step from Keynesian countercyclical spending to WORLD COMMUNISM!

No where is it even suggested by evidence that teabaggers had anything to do with this.

EDIT: No, seriously this might be the most dishonest thing Myrmi has ever posted.

I mean, Im sure Obama is really concerned about losing those quarter of a million votes from the racists and far right fringe hypocrits who werent going to vote for him anyway, but....:rolleyes:

No where is it even suggested that teabaggers had anything to do with this.

EDIT: No, seriously this might be the most dishonest thing Myrmi has ever posted.

When I was driving through town and the teabaggers were holding signs, I did not see one asking for a decrease in spending; the closest thing I saw was "ABOLISH THE GOVERNMENT!" :rolleyes:

When I was driving through town and the teabaggers were holding signs, I did not see one asking for a decrease in spending; the closest thing I saw was "ABOLISH THE GOVERNMENT!" :rolleyes:

Because most of them are fine with huge government spending, as long as its on the wealthy and the military.

I garuntee you if Obama said "Ok, fine, Im cutting spending. Im cutting defense spending and getting rid of corporate tax cuts" they would all howl "BUT THATS NOT THE KIND OF SPENDING WE WANTED YOU TO CUT!!!!"

Where was this fiscal conservatism the past six years?

Oh right, spending is only bad if you can blame the Democrats for it. Spending that's off the books is just fine.



Where's the change Sauron?!

It's only a small step from Keynesian countercyclical spending to WORLD COMMUNISM!

I wouldn't be too sarcastic the reds are already marching in the streets demanding vague concepts

Im mean, Im sure Obama is really concerned about losing those quarter of a million votes from the racists and far right fringe hypocrits who werent going to vote for him anyway, but....:rolleyes:

now call a few million people racist hypocrites if you will but I will probabaly not sit idly by whilst you tarnish the names of the brave Aryan brotherhood who voted for Obama

Obama did not cry on camera. You guys didn't accomplish jack.

now call a few million people racist hypocrites if you will but I will probabaly not sit idly by whilst you tarnish the names of the brave Aryan brotherhood who voted for Obama

The tea baggers didnt even reach one million. Try a fourth of that.

Obama did not cry on camera. You guys didn't accomplish jack.

Maybe Hillary can give him some pointers.

Yep, that's right... We've got him shaking in his boots -- shoes.
From the AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_7),

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama convenes his first formal Cabinet meeting Monday and will ask department and agency chiefs to look for ways over the next 90 days to cut $100 million out of the federal budget, a senior administration official said.

That ought to just about do it. This is certainly how he intends to keep the promise to halve the deficit to $500 billion by 2012.

Wait, did he say Million? Why he sure did! That's about 0.0000111 percent of the $9.3 Trillion in deficits that the CBO expects him to add by 2018. Maybe he doesn't get it after all.
Question:

Is there any action that Obama could take without conservatives crowing about how said action is Clearly Great News For Conservatives(tm)?

Because so far it seems like Obama can't take a shit without Republicans declaring victory over something.

I garuntee you if Obama said "Ok, fine, Im cutting spending. Im cutting defense spending and getting rid of corporate tax cuts" they would all howl "BUT THATS NOT THE KIND OF SPENDING WE WANTED YOU TO CUT!!!!"

I do beleive the main complaint is pork barreling and (as McCain bitched about) the business of money when it comes which massively puts up the defense budget

Where was this fiscal conservatism the past six years?

prolly privatizing things like schools and roads

Obama's mistake was even acknowledging the Tea parties. A good leader knows when to ignore people.

I do beleive the main complaint is pork barreling and (as McCain bitched about) the business of money when it comes which massively puts up the defense budget


No, its pretty much just people whining that their guy isnt the one doing the spending anymore.

Obama's mistake was even acknowledging the Tea parties. A good leader knows when to ignore people.

This I agree with.

This I agree with.

Did he even acknowledge them though? Ive seen him say nothing on the subject.

The tea baggers didnt even reach one million. Try a fourth of that.

apparently it depends on who you ask (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0418/p25s03-usgn.html)

which is irrelevant surely? especially as you shouldn't go about calling people this and that then bitch when it comes back at cha

*clicks fingers and does the head thing in ghetto fashion*

Obama's mistake was even acknowledging the Tea parties. A good leader knows when to ignore people.

I think what hes trying to do is build back some of his internet persona after a few billion people demanded he legalize marijuana

Did he even acknowledge them though? Ive seen him say nothing on the subject.

Well, I was assuming that Myrmi had some basis for his statement...

Well, I was assuming that Myrmi had some basis for his statement...
Why would you assume that?

apparently it depends on who you ask (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0418/p25s03-usgn.html)

which is irrelevant surely? especially as you shouldn't go about calling people this and that then bitch when it comes back at cha

*clicks fingers and does the head thing in ghetto fashion*



Even if that poorly estimated number is right...its still only half a million. Thats not much. At all.

Well, I was assuming that Myrmi had some basis for his statement...

Ah, yes, well, that would be your problem. You are clearly unfamiliar with Myrmi's posting history.

Obama's mistake was even acknowledging the Tea parties. A good leader knows when to ignore people.

Yours is too wide a definition of "people".

Why would you assume that?

*shrugs*

No, its pretty much just people whining that their guy isnt the one doing the spending anymore.

bullshit, even if it is true (which I'm not saying its not) its hidden behind "pork barreling" and a stimulus package fad which even has me worried

Even if that poorly estimated number is right...its still only half a million. Thats not much. At all.

by that logic you could discredit most G-unit protests

bullshit, even if it is true (which I'm not saying its not) its hidden behind "pork barreling" and a stimulus package fad which even has me worried
No, thats not what these protests are about. Theyre about spending. Thats what everyone says theyre about. Spending and taxes. "Pork" hasnt even come up.

You have a really bad habit of telling me what the American political climate is, when I live here and you dont. Please stop.
by that logic you could discredit most G-unit protests
1. What the fuck is a G-unit protest?
2. Any movement that small is unlikely to affect policy. Period.

Because so far it seems like Obama can't take a shit without Republicans declaring victory over something.

"We told Obama to get rid of waste, and he did!" :p

"We told Obama to get rid of waste, and he did!" :p

Yay! :D

Because most of them are fine with huge government spending, as long as its on the wealthy and the military.

I garuntee you if Obama said "Ok, fine, Im cutting spending. Im cutting defense spending and getting rid of corporate tax cuts" they would all howl "BUT THATS NOT THE KIND OF SPENDING WE WANTED YOU TO CUT!!!!"

If they supported an action like that, I might be out there with them. But they do not. :(

Yours is too wide a definition of "people".

there are reasons I should never become president. Mostly because there will be a lot of dead/missing people. Some of the worst Latin American Juntas come to mind when I think about myself in charge.

Question:

Is there any action that Obama could take without conservatives crowing about how said action is Clearly Great News For Conservatives(tm)?

Because so far it seems like Obama can't take a shit without Republicans declaring victory over something.

Unless of course it deals with anti american commies. Newt Gingritch was on fox news chastizing Obama's warm greeting, with a smile and handshake, of Hugo Chavez. Gingritch claimed that while a handshake is good, smiling warmly and greeting him positively sends a wrong message, and that american presidents never smiled at their soviet counterparts.

K...

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a999brezhnevnixon_2050081722-26961.jpg

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/72431145.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=4996399091E83186D64966588BFBB471CA52222F25EC092C

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/JFK_meeting_Khrushchev,_3_June_1961.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/President_Reagan_and_Soviet_General_Secretary_Gorbachev_shake_hands_after_signing_the_INF_Treaty_.jp g

No, thats not what these protests are about. Theyre about spending. Thats what everyone says theyre about. Spending and taxes. "Pork" hasnt even come up.

pork barrelling = spending and its a major republican complaint

You have a really bad habit of telling me what the American political climate is, when I live here and you dont. Please stop.

I'm British and also European which gives me the responsibility to meddle in your affairs with the added sport of acting snooty in an effort to give you a heart attack

1. What the fuck is a G-unit protest?
2. Any movement that small is unlikely to affect policy. Period.

1) G-20/8/12 used because the multitude of numbers present is wholly uncool and thus a nickname was devised involving 50 cent (he got the magic stick)

2) only protesters represent much larger numbers when you factor in those who stay home

pork barrelling = spending and its a major republican complaint
No, 'pork barrel' spending is not just plain old spending. The two are actually different.
1) G-20/8/12 used because the multitude of numbers present is wholly uncool and thus a nickname was devised involving 50 cent (he got the magic stick)
Ah ok.
2) only protesters represent much larger numbers when you factor in those who stay home
If that is true (and I dont think it always is), you must assume that those people are not very committed to their cause. And so will probably change their mind easily. So you dont have to worry about them.

Ok???

Can somebody explain the link between this cut and the efforts of the teabaggers?

Ok???

Can somebody explain the link between this cut and the efforts of the teabaggers?

The tea baggers are secretly funded by Nixon.

Is that it? 100m? But I thought the teabaggers (really, how could they not see what would happen with that name?) were all for tax cuts anyway?

Unless of course it deals with anti american commies. Newt Gingritch was on fox news chastizing Obama's warm greeting, with a smile and handshake, of Hugo Chavez. Gingritch claimed that while a handshake is good, smiling warmly and greeting him positively sends a wrong message, and that american presidents never smiled at their soviet counterparts.

K...

But Hugo is obviously a much greater threat to the United States.

But Hugo is obviously a much greater threat to the United Stats.

He has oil right.

Si Senor threat.

apparently it depends on who you ask (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0418/p25s03-usgn.html)

which is irrelevant surely?
No, it's very interesting, since it'll be every single Fox News viewer. ;) It would be nice to have an accurate number for the people willing to swallow their shit.

No, it's very interesting, since it'll be every single Fox News viewer. ;) It would be nice to have an accurate number for the people willing to swallow their shit.

How many people were at the million man march ?

When I was driving through town and the teabaggers were holding signs, I did not see one asking for a decrease in spending; the closest thing I saw was "ABOLISH THE GOVERNMENT!" :rolleyes:

Hey, be fair. I have here a wealth of images asking for decreases in spending.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/vote.jpg
Whoops, copied the wrong link.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/confederate.jpg
Wait, no, that's not it.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/birthcert.jpg
Hold on, I had it a second ago.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/kenya.jpg
I know it's around here somewhere.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/obamakenya.jpg
I could have sworn I had it.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/lynching.jpg
Wait that's not even a sign, disregard this.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/barneyfrank.jpg
Well it has to do with government spending, so we're getting close.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/obamabinladen.jpg
Mentions taxes, getting closer.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/ohjesuswhatfuckyou.jpg
Here we go.

Snip.

Hey, you got moron images all over the thread! :p

Hey, be fair. I have here a wealth of images asking for decreases in spending.



Wow! I felt like I was on a merry-go-round for a second there. ;)

How many people were at the million man march ?

999,999 people and a dog? I dunno... What about it?

Remember kids...

It's only a small step from Keynesian countercyclical spending to WORLD COMMUNISM!

OMG COMMIES!!!!! :eek:

*quickly distributes copies of "Duck and Cover," hides under bed*

:p

Hey, be fair. I have here a wealth of images asking for decreases in spending.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/vote.jpg
Whoops, copied the wrong link.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/confederate.jpg
Wait, no, that's not it.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/birthcert.jpg
Hold on, I had it a second ago.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/kenya.jpg
I know it's around here somewhere.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/obamakenya.jpg
I could have sworn I had it.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/lynching.jpg
Wait that's not even a sign, disregard this.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/barneyfrank.jpg
Well it has to do with government spending, so we're getting close.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/obamabinladen.jpg
Mentions taxes, getting closer.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/ohjesuswhatfuckyou.jpg
Here we go.

There are many legitimate reasons to oppose Frank and Obama, but the former's homosexuality and the latter's ethnicity and citizenship (do the conspiracy theorists have any proof he's a non-citizen?) are not legitimate reasons. Thank God I didn't see any douchebags like that. I'm guessing most of these signs were at the "tea parties" held in the Southern U.S.A. Anyone who has ever attended, or at least sympathized with on some level, the "tea parties" should distance themselves from inbred bigoted fuckwads like these, if they haven't done so already.

Remember kids...

It's only a small step from Keynesian countercyclical spending to WORLD COMMUNISM!

I fully understand and support countercyclical spending (actually, I am doing a lot of if on my NS2, nation); what I do not see is how irresponsible military expenditure is part of that. Out of Obama's discretionary budget a huge percentage is devoted to military spending.

Hey, be fair. I have here a wealth of images asking for decreases in spending.

I stand corrected: These were obviously what made Obama cut spending.

I fully understand and support countercyclical spending (actually, I am doing a lot of if on my NS2, nation); what I do not see is how irresponsible military expenditure is part of that. Out of Obama's discretionary budget a huge percentage is devoted to military spending.

I can almost-kinda-sorta understand some possible reasons for keeping up military spending, such as maintining employment in a labour force with a very specific skill set. But really, I'm pretty sure most of those army guys could do manual labour well enough if Obama directed the spending at national infrastructure or somesuch...

*knows nothing about economics or labour markets*

*snip*

Where was the Republican outrage when Bush shook hands with tyrants like Mubarak, Karimov, Musharraf (sp?), Abdullah, and the like?

He has oil right.

Si Senor threat.

Then maybe it is time we reevaluated our foreign policy regarding this particular socialist.


http://reggiebibbs.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/www_sticker_tk_kiss_my_ass-1.thumbnail.jpg

I can almost-kinda-sorta understand some possible reasons for keeping up military spending, such as maintining employment in a labour force with a very specific skill set. But really, I'm pretty sure most of those army guys could do manual labour well enough if Obama directed the spending at national infrastructure or somesuch...

*knows nothing about economics or labour markets*

Could be you are right....

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/images/Budget%202009%20Proposed%20Discretionary%2002102009.jpg

Could be you are right....

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/images/Budget%202009%20Proposed%20Discretionary%2002102009.jpg

Just to point out, even thought it says so in the title: this is discretionary spending. There are expensive programs like Social Security which don't appear.
It's still an alarming graph; but could be misleading if you didn't see the small print underneath.

He should stop appeasing the right-wing crackpots.

Just to point out, even thought it says so in the title: this is discretionary spending. There are expensive programs like Social Security which don't appear.
It's still an alarming graph; but could be misleading if you didn't see the small print underneath.

It is the budget Obama has any control over.

And social security? That is just Government-run insurance.

Just to point out, even thought it says so in the title: this is discretionary spending. There are expensive programs like Social Security which don't appear.
It's still an alarming graph; but could be misleading if you didn't see the small print underneath.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3433467010_849c3f4dec_o.jpg

Defense spending in the US trumps all other spending except payments made for the national debt.

I fully understand and support countercyclical spending (actually, I am doing a lot of if on my NS2, nation); what I do not see is how irresponsible military expenditure is part of that. Out of Obama's discretionary budget a huge percentage is devoted to military spending.

I'd imagine there could still be a multiplied effect, but a very small one. Also there will be a lag because you have to wait for the soldiers to come home before they consume.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3433467010_849c3f4dec_o.jpg

Defense spending in the US trumps all other spending except payments made for the national debt.
Cool graphic. And I know defense is still the money vacuum, but not to the degree it is in TPE's.

Cool graphic. And I know defense is still the money vacuum, but not to the degree it is in TPE's.

Here is the normal one:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g2/nulwee/2009Budget.png?t=1240268721

About 38% of total, and this is not even what Obama has control over.

I saw this while researching something else (I'm actually supposed to be writing a short paper), but it seemed applicable here. It shows how fed up and angry Americans are with income taxes.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mb2rfpflgekzt2rx4e480g.gif

Well...sort of. Link is here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117433/Views-Income-Taxes-Among-Positive-1956.aspx).

They should do a poll and ask how many people think the estate tax is too high. I can bet you I know how many - the same percent of America that are hardcore right-wing and blue-collar.

They should do a poll and ask how many people think the estate tax is too high. I can bet you I know how many - the same percent of America that are hardcore right-wing and blue-collar.

I've never understood blue collar support for Republicans. Why support people who plan to neglect you?

They should do a poll and ask how many people think the estate tax is too high. I can bet you I know how many - the same percent of America that are hardcore right-wing and blue-collar.

That's the funny thing about taxes. No one really likes them, and if one guy says he'll cut taxes and the other says he'll raise them, it's not surprising who will win. At the same time, most people recognize they have a civic duty to pay them. There hasn't been a "revolt" in the real sense of the word for a very long time.

Point is that this is insignificant. It's like a family with an income of $100,000 facing a $33,000 shortfall. The answer is to cut back $3. The other $32,997 can be charged on a credit card and worried about next year.

Uh...was the cut a direct response to the Tea Parties, or are you making that connection yourself. I know the answer, but I'll wait for proof anyway.

I've never understood blue collar support for Republicans. Why support people who plan to neglect you?

Same thing with small business owners. Have a close look at which administrations have been worse to them over the decades.

At the same time, most people recognize they have a civic duty to pay them.
Never been to the South I take it?

Never been to the South I take it?

I live there...sort of. But in the South people pay taxes. There haven't been violent protests, or even a refusal to pay. They just try to keep them low.

Hey, be fair. I have here a wealth of images asking for decreases in spending.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/vote.jpg
Whoops, copied the wrong link.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/confederate.jpg
Wait, no, that's not it.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/birthcert.jpg
Hold on, I had it a second ago.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/kenya.jpg
I know it's around here somewhere.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/obamakenya.jpg
I could have sworn I had it.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/lynching.jpg
Wait that's not even a sign, disregard this.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/barneyfrank.jpg
Well it has to do with government spending, so we're getting close.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/obamabinladen.jpg
Mentions taxes, getting closer.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/ohjesuswhatfuckyou.jpg
Here we go.


Wow, I was told these guys were totally not partisan and totally not racist.

I was lied too?:eek:

Wow, I was told these guys were totally not partisan and totally not racist.

I was lied too?:eek:

Lied "to".

Oh, my God, I'm one of THOSE guys...

Wow, I was told these guys were totally not partisan and totally not racist.

I was lied too?:eek:

Totally non-partisan, which is why they have been at this for 8 years now. Oh wait.

Wow, I was told these guys were totally not partisan and totally not racist.

I was lied too?:eek:

Not all of the "teabaggers" are non-partisan or non-racist, though many are.

Totally non-partisan, which is why they have been at this for 8 years now. Oh wait.

I knowz! And look at all the totally not white people, totally non-middle class people there too!

Oh wait, that was also a lie.


So, once again, we're back to were we started, and said in the teabag thread.

This is an astroturf movement from a bunch of pissed of fringe conservative middle class white people mixed in with Stormfront regulars.

Not all of the "teabaggers" are non-partisan or non-racist, though many are.

I have yet to see any evidence that these people are 'non-paritsan'.

Especially since they all seemed real content for the past eight years. Till we started spending money on the non-wealthy, non-corperate, and non-military projects.


Then OMG SPENDING!!!!!!

I knowz! And look at all the totally not white people, totally non-middle class Christians there too!

Oh wait, that was also a lie.


So, once again, we're back to were we started, and said in the teabag thread.

This is an astroturf movement from a bunch of pissed of fringe conservative middle class white people mixed in with Stormfront regulars.

To be fair, I think the composition of the average "tea party" varied by state. For example, you are probably far more likely to see a bunch of Stormfront-ers at a "tea party" in, say, Mississippi (no offense, Mississippians) than in Minnesota.

I have yet to see any evidence that these people are 'non-paritsan'.

Especially since they all seemed real content for the past eight years. Till we started spending money on the non-wealthy, non-corperate, and non-military projects.


Then OMG SPENDING!!!!!!

Some of them are non-partisan. Not all, or even most. Most of the people I know who attended "tea parties" are non-partisan, but unfortunately, they are an extremely tiny minority.

Some of them are non-partisan. Not all, or even most. Most of the people I know who attended "tea parties" are non-partisan, but unfortunately, they are an extremely tiny minority.


Ill believe that. Especially the tiny part.

Interesting.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Interesting.

Correlation does not imply causation.
So...does that mean that the $100mil cut in cabinet budgets is not down to the credit of the teabaggers?

Or does it mean that the presence of racists among the teabaggers is not the fault of the black guy in the oval office? ;)

Not all of the "teabaggers" are non-partisan or non-racist, though many are.

Yeah, and King Kong wasn't a giant ape from an island full of dinosaurs.

Yeah, and King Kong wasn't a giant ape from an island full of dinosaurs.

He wasn't from an island of dinosaurs in the 1976 Jeff Bridges version, just a large snake.







Just sayin'...

He wasn't from an island of dinosaurs in the 1976 Jeff Bridges version, just a large snake.

1976 was a remake, argument dismissed.

1976 was a remake, argument dismissed.

You didn't specify the original King Kong, a fictional monster, was from an island full of dinosaurs. You simply said 'King Kong.' Further, while you could more accurately characterize Jackson's King Kong as a remake in that it kept the context of the first film, the Bridge's Kong was more of an update where the hubris and greed is personified in that of Charles Grodin's oil man.

However, given that King Kong is a fictional monster having had many interpretations at this point, he can both be said to have and have not come from an island full of monsters. The only way to 'dismiss' this is to amend your initial statement to specify which interpretation of the monster you were talking about. Just because it was not the first Kong does not mean that it was not Kong. They were not exactly biopics, after all...

You didn't specify the original King Kong, a fictional monster, was from an island full of dinosaurs. You simply said 'King Kong.' Further, while you could more accurately characterize Jackson's King Kong as a remake in that it kept the context of the first film, the Bridge's Kong was more of an update where the hubris and greed is personified in that of Charles Grodin's oil man.

However, given that King Kong is a fictional monster having had many interpretations at this point, he can both be said to have and have not come from an island full of monsters. The only way to 'dismiss' this is to amend your initial statement to specify which interpretation of the monster you were talking about. Just because it was not the first Kong does not mean that it was not Kong. They were not exactly biopics, after all...

They were, actually, and like all biopics they exaggerated. Like in how they octupled Kong's size. And made him a gorilla. Besides that, they weren't too far off.

They were not exactly biopics, after all...
No, but this is quite myopic.

Question:

Is there any action that Obama could take without conservatives crowing about how said action is Clearly Great News For Conservatives(tm)?

Because so far it seems like Obama can't take a shit without Republicans declaring victory over something.

Very interesting point and I have to say you are on to something. They really are having a hard time being out of power.

Edit: and having their asses handed to them in the process of their removal.

Uh...was the cut a direct response to the Tea Parties, or are you making that connection yourself. I know the answer, but I'll wait for proof anyway.
Who the hell really cares, anyway? Asking for budget reductions of such an insignificant amount invites any and all derision.

Any and all protests over the size of the federal government are great things. Especially since they seem to have agitated liberals to such a great extent.

Very interesting point and I have to say you are on to something. They really are having a hard time being out of power.

Edit: and having their asses handed to them in the process of their removal.
They're being the opposition party. By definition, they shouldn't just acquiesce to everything that Obama does. That's your job, NSG and Democrats.

And the Republicans did enough acquiescing during the GWB years to keep us rolling on this road to ruin.

And the Republicans did enough acquiescing during the GWB years to keep us rolling on this road to ruin.

Of course they did. He was a Republican too. If he had decided to nuke New York and Pittsburgh, they would have cheered him on. But the moment it's someone not from their party, everything he does is evil.

Maybe it's lost on you, but politicians are supposed to serve the nation, not have the nation serve it in the interests of advancing the party.

It's still 0.0000111 less.

Who the hell really cares, anyway? Asking for budget reductions of such an insignificant amount invites any and all derision.
Does this mean you're done with your little victory dance?

Yep, that's right... We've got him shaking in his boots -- shoes.

Any and all protests over the size of the federal government are great things. Especially since they seem to have agitated liberals to such a great extent.
Yeah, the liberals are the ones who are all agitated, waving scribbled signs, hanging Eeyore in effigy, dangling teabags off their hats, trying to claim credit for any little thing that happens, and then copping a "meh" when it turns out they can't.

I love it when people do that -- "Ooh-ooh-ooh, it's all about us!! We have the powah!! Rawr--- oh, wait, it's not about us. Feh, who cares anyway? It's no big deal. You people are all silly for caring."

Any and all protests over the size of the federal government are great things. Especially since they seem to have agitated liberals to such a great extent.

Hell, I am a liberal, and I am not agitated; I would even be out there with you, but so many of you favor and increase in Defense that it sounds as if you are all hypocrites who claim hating to pay taxes is a political philosophy.

They really are having a hard time being out of power.

Good. That means they're suffering.

Of course they did. He was a Republican too. If he had decided to nuke New York and Pittsburgh, they would have cheered him on. But the moment it's someone not from their party, everything he does is evil.

Maybe it's lost on you, but politicians are supposed to serve the nation, not have the nation serve it in the interests of advancing the party.
And by being the opposition to bad policy, they are serving the nation. Supporting the nonsense that is coming out of the White House and the majority offices of Congress is hardly the way out of this mess.

And by being the opposition to bad policy, they are serving the nation. Supporting the nonsense that is coming out of the White House and the majority offices of Congress is hardly the way out of this mess.

It's also insanely hypocritical, given their total silence during the Bush era.

It's also insanely hypocritical, given their total silence during the Bush era.
Total silence? Ha! They were largely cheerleaders for his spending sprees. Voting in favor of that crap was hardly silence.

Hypocritical? It doesn't especially matter. Not if the actions of the Republicans can slow down this train.

Total silence? Ha! They were largely cheerleaders for his spending sprees. Voting in favor of that crap was hardly silence.

Hypocritical? It doesn't especially matter. Not if the actions of the Republicans can slow down this train.

Lack of protest, whatever. Point is, the people complaining now are total hypocrites and, as such, it's difficult to take what they say as anything other than the pathetic whining of sore losers.

Lack of protest, whatever. Point is, the people complaining now are total hypocrites and, as such, it's difficult to take what they say as anything other than the pathetic whining of sore losers.
And another consequence of elections is that the winning side gets to gloat. Fine. I'm sticking with the opposition party explanation. I guess we'll see who else buys into it in 2010.

And by being the opposition to bad policy, they are serving the nation. Supporting the nonsense that is coming out of the White House and the majority offices of Congress is hardly the way out of this mess.

I see you dodge the point utterly. Why such quiet opposition in the last 8 years despite them being bad hmm? Or maybe you'll pretend that when a Republican does it, it isn't rubbish, or better yet, that it never happened.

And another consequence of elections is that the winning side gets to gloat. Fine. I'm sticking with the opposition party explanation. I guess we'll see who else buys into it in 2010.

If you or any of these teabaggers actually cared about controlling government spending, they would have been protesting for the past 8 years. The fact that you and these teabaggers were utterly silent for Bush's out of control spending means that all you REALLY care about is bitching and moaning because you lost. Your outrage isn't over government spending, it's over Democrat spending. Don't pretend otherwise, you're as transparent as glass.

If you or any of these teabaggers actually cared about controlling government spending, they would have been protesting for the past 8 years. The fact that you and these teabaggers were utterly silent for Bush's out of control spending means that all you REALLY care about is bitching and moaning because you lost. Your outrage isn't over government spending, it's over Democrat spending. Don't pretend otherwise, you're as transparent as glass.
Collectively, or individually applied, the characteristics you attribute to me/us are incorrect. You conveniently don't recall the opposition to Bush's spending. I've objected, long before this. It didn't work to be nice. Thus the protests.

But even people nicer than myself have objected to GWB and his spendthrift policies... Peggy Noonan is the nicest and most pro-Republican columnist (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007291) that I can think of and she wrote this back in 2005...

...
George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.
...
Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.

A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.
...

And she never let up. Doesn't get mean, like a Democrat would, but she isn't cheerleading, either.

Collectively, or individually applied, the characteristics you attribute to me/us are incorrect. You conveniently don't recall the opposition to Bush's spending. I've objected, long before this. It didn't work to be nice. Thus the protests.

But even people nicer than myself have objected to GWB and his spendthrift policies... Peggy Noonan is the nicest and most pro-Republican columnist (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007291) that I can think of and she wrote this back in 2005...

...
George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.
...
Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.

A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.
...

And she never let up. Doesn't get mean, like a Democrat would, but she isn't cheerleading, either.
Are you her? Was she a teabagger?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is "no," then she is not relevant to what Sdaeriji said.

Who the hell really cares, anyway? Asking for budget reductions of such an insignificant amount invites any and all derision.

Only if you're of the completely stupid persuasion of 'if you can't do everything, you shouldn't do anything,' or if you insist on pretending that's all that's being done. But you know, if you claim Obama doing something he said he'd do on the campaign trail is a result of a protest last week, you've already got the disengenious ball rolling pretty well-

Asked by reporters after the meeting if that amount is a drop in the bucket of the government's budget, Obama said "it is."

"None of these things alone are going to make a difference. But cumulatively they make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone," Obama said. "And so what we're going to do is, line by line, page by page, $100 million there, $100 million here, pretty soon even in Washington, it adds up to real money."

...

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs shot back: "Only in Washington, D.C. is $ 100 million not a lot of money. It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans."

...

"I'm very pleased about the work that we've done, but we've got more to do," Obama said.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200904201503dowjonesdjonline000586&title=updateobama-proposed-spending-cuts-will-make-difference-over-time

Who the hell really cares, anyway?

You seem to.

Asking for budget reductions of such an insignificant amount invites any and all derision.

Kind of the like the questioning of ones loyalty to the country for challenging the shrub/Republican policies.

Any and all protests over the size of the federal government are great things. Especially since they seem to have agitated liberals to such a great extent.

These protests will be forgotten in so many months. Especially, if there is no follow up which I suspect will be the case.

Hmmm They tea bagged the government for a 100 million in reductions. So how many more times will they have to teabag the government to get the budget in line?

Only if you're of the completely stupid persuasion of 'if you can't do everything, you shouldn't do anything,' or if you insist on pretending that's all that's being done. But you know, if you claim Obama doing something he said he'd do on the campaign trail is a result of a protest last week, you've already got the disengenious ball rolling pretty well-


http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200904201503dowjonesdjonline000586&title=updateobama-proposed-spending-cuts-will-make-difference-over-time

Doesn't matter, if the Republicans can bitch and whine hard enough they'll fool some schmucks into voting for them. See the CIA memo release. Every time a Republican mentions it they get on the news, and they just have to keep stirring it up. Plus bitching about Obama deflects attention from their eight years of torture and massive government spending.

Yep, that's right... We've got him shaking in his boots -- shoes.
"lulz we r teh winnerz!!!!11!"

*evidence to the contrary appears*
Who the hell really cares, anyway?
"Wait? I lost? Who cares? I nevah wanted to play ur stupid game anywayz!!1!"
Especially since they seem to have agitated liberals to such a great extent.
Oh, you are mistaken. Im not agitated. I think the teabagging is a great thing. Not only is the term you guys came up with worth untold millions in comedic value by itself, I love the fact that all the crazies are coming out of the woodwork. I love the fact that Fox News is exposing itself as a mouthpeice for the crazies. A quarter of a million people in the country came out and protested. Thats not some huge backlash against Obama. Thats the nutty Busheviks coming out in droves to whine. I think its fucking awesome. The love the fact that the GOP has endorsed it, making themselves the voice of the fringe right. And I love the fact that the GOP and all you teabagging hypocrits have now been put in the same catagory (and involved in the same political movements) as groups like Stormfront.

I think its awesome. I hope the GOP and you guys continue to associate yourselves with the far right fringe and neo-nazis. Im sure Stormfront is grateful to you guys as well.

Who knows, if you keep this up, you might hold less then 30 seats come 2010.

Only if you're of the completely stupid persuasion of 'if you can't do everything, you shouldn't do anything,' or if you insist on pretending that's all that's being done. But you know, if you claim Obama doing something he said he'd do on the campaign trail is a result of a protest last week, you've already got the disengenious ball rolling pretty well-


http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200904201503dowjonesdjonline000586&title=updateobama-proposed-spending-cuts-will-make-difference-over-time
That's right. This is the same Obama that thinks we would save gazillions of barrels of oil if we just inflated our tires to the right pressure... He's clueless and I think most of us are figuring that out.

I've put $100,000,000 in perspective already. It's insignificant. Trivial. Meaningless. Eye-wash. In fact, I figure that our government would spend more money trying to figure out which $100,000,000 than it would ever save by cutting that amount.

That's right. This is the same Obama that thinks we would save gazillions of barrels of oil if we just inflated our tires to the right pressure...

Right, when exactly did he say this?

Simple fact of the matter is if your tires are inflated to the correct pressure you will burn less gas.

He's clueless and I think most of us are figuring that out.


Youre either clueless, not 'thinking' right, or lying.

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

63% approval rating. Still within the margin of error to his approval rating at his inauggeration and the 66% all time high he had a few weeks ago.

28% is not 'most'.

Right, when exactly did he say this?

Simple fact of the matter is if your tires are inflated to the correct pressure you will burn less gas.
Man, we have some convenient memories. This was one of his reasons, during the campaign, why we shouldn't open up new areas for oil exploration. Sure it saves a little, but not the expected yields that offshore, ANWAR, etc would provide.

Yeah, we can do a little here and a little there, but the 'little' part needs to be in the right proportion. One thing Obama could do is quit ordering out for pizza (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/3C8F43FA92719BDC862575910082922A?OpenDocument)...
But only if the little things really count.

That's right. This is the same Obama that thinks we would save gazillions of barrels of oil if we just inflated our tires to the right pressure... He's clueless and I think most of us are figuring that out.

Yeah, you all remember that time Obama said that we could save lots of oil if Americans kept their tires properly inflated?

Remember how all the republicans laughed and laughed at such a stupid comment?

Remember how after that, all those automotive experts came out and said Obama was right, and if we all properly inflated our tires, we could cut oil consumption by up to 3%?

Remember how the republicans stopped laughing?

Seems Myr stopped reading that memo after point #2.

That's right. This is the same Obama that thinks we would save gazillions of barrels of oil if we just inflated our tires to the right pressure... He's clueless and I think most of us are figuring that out.

I've put $100,000,000 in perspective already. It's insignificant. Trivial. Meaningless. Eye-wash. In fact, I figure that our government would spend more money trying to figure out which $100,000,000 than it would ever save by cutting that amount.

Ugh, it's like you just sneezed stale talking points all over the place...

Yeah, we can do a little here and a little there, but the 'little' part needs to be in the right proportion. One thing Obama could do is quit ordering out for pizza (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/3C8F43FA92719BDC862575910082922A?OpenDocument)...
But only if the little things really count.

What the fuck is this? The cooks at a pizza resturant fly out to make the guy pizza for one event, and you somehow think this makes him a hypocrit?

Yeah, we can do a little here and a little there, but the 'little' part needs to be in the right proportion. One thing Obama could do is quit ordering out for pizza (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/3C8F43FA92719BDC862575910082922A?OpenDocument)...
But only if the little things really count.

:D Wow pizza! He still has a ways to work to catch up to your buddy the shrub........

Yeah, you all remember that time Obama said that we could save lots of oil if Americans kept their tires properly inflated?

Remember how all the republicans laughed and laughed at such a stupid comment?

Remember how after that, all those automotive experts came out and said Obama was right, and if we all properly inflated our tires, we could cut oil consumption by up to 3%?

Remember how the republicans stopped laughing?

Seems Myr stopped reading that memo after point #2.

There's a big difference between cutting consumption, which is absolutely undeniable, and saving the kinds of amounts that Obama claimed at the time. Of course, y'all have covered for him, but the original claim was ludicrous.

Man, we have some convenient memories. This was one of his reasons, during the campaign, why we shouldn't open up new areas for oil exploration. Sure it saves a little, but not the expected yields that offshore, ANWAR, etc would provide.

Yeah, we can do a little here and a little there, but the 'little' part needs to be in the right proportion. One thing Obama could do is quit ordering out for pizza (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/3C8F43FA92719BDC862575910082922A?OpenDocument)...
But only if the little things really count.

Again, show me where he said "we would save gazillions of barrels of oil if we just inflated our tires to the right pressure".

There's a big difference between cutting consumption, which is absolutely undeniable, and saving the kinds of amounts that Obama claimed at the time. Of course, y'all have covered for him, but the original claim was ludicrous.

And again, show we he made outrageous claims about it. If you are right then you shouldn't have any problem coming up with the proof.

What the fuck is this? The cooks at a pizza resturant fly out to make the guy pizza for one event, and you somehow think this makes him a hypocrit?
You didn't notice that he had the guy out at Easter, too. Two events makes a trend.

But, if the little things really mattered, he'd be a better steward of public money.

There's a big difference between cutting consumption, which is absolutely undeniable, and saving the kinds of amounts that Obama claimed at the time. Of course, y'all have covered for him, but the original claim was ludicrous.

Lets see the original claim then. Because I dont think it was as crazy as what you say.

Hey, be fair. I have here a wealth of images asking for decreases in spending.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/vote.jpg
Whoops, copied the wrong link.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/confederate.jpg
Wait, no, that's not it.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/birthcert.jpg
Hold on, I had it a second ago.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/kenya.jpg
I know it's around here somewhere.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/obamakenya.jpg
I could have sworn I had it.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/lynching.jpg
Wait that's not even a sign, disregard this.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/barneyfrank.jpg
Well it has to do with government spending, so we're getting close.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/obamabinladen.jpg
Mentions taxes, getting closer.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/ohjesuswhatfuckyou.jpg
Here we go.

God help us all that these people are even allowed to vote.

There's a big difference between cutting consumption, which is absolutely undeniable, and saving the kinds of amounts that Obama claimed at the time. Of course, y'all have covered for him, but the original claim was ludicrous.

Just because you named the voices in your head "Obama" and "Liberals" doesn't mean that Obama or Liberals actually said those things. Even if the voices exaggerate what was actually said, still just the voices in your head.

Lets see the original claim then. Because I dont think it was as crazy as what you say.

Since we know that Myrmi won't do it, I will...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28

Support for Obama's statement.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/politifact-find.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lyndsi-thomas/2008/08/05/time-magazine-obamas-tire-inflation-plan-no-joke

Since we know that Myrmi won't do it, I will...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28

Support for Obama's statement.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/politifact-find.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lyndsi-thomas/2008/08/05/time-magazine-obamas-tire-inflation-plan-no-joke


So its not as crazy as what Myrmi said. And Obama has support for it.

So...as usual...Myrmi is talking crap.

Collectively, or individually applied, the characteristics you attribute to me/us are incorrect. You conveniently don't recall the opposition to Bush's spending. I've objected, long before this. It didn't work to be nice. Thus the protests.

But even people nicer than myself have objected to GWB and his spendthrift policies... Peggy Noonan is the nicest and most pro-Republican columnist (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007291) that I can think of and she wrote this back in 2005...

...
George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.
...
Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.

A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.
...

And she never let up. Doesn't get mean, like a Democrat would, but she isn't cheerleading, either.

A single columnist wrote a single column. That does not equate to mass protests; nothing on the scale that we are conveniently seeing now that a Democrat is in charge. The people protesting now were not doing anything during eight years of Bush, because the entire astroturf teabagger movement is solely about partisan politics.

You didn't notice that he had the guy out at Easter, too. Two events makes a trend.

But, if the little things really mattered, he'd be a better steward of public money.

Feel free to keep pretending the teabagging is about public money, as opposed to him being black or a Democrat. But bear in mind that we all remember how Republicans equated dissent with anti-Americanism for eight fucking years.

Dished it out. Take it.

So its not as crazy as what Myrmi said. And Obama has support for it.

So...as usual...Myrmi is talking crap.

Yup.
1. It's true
2. It's a comment he made in response to someone asking what they can do to help...

They're being the opposition party. By definition, they shouldn't just acquiesce to everything that Obama does. That's your job, NSG and Democrats.

And the Republicans did enough acquiescing during the GWB years to keep us rolling on this road to ruin.

Opposition to everything is just stupid. I've been a registered Republican since age 18 and have been very proud of the party for many years. That didn't stop me from recognizing positive achievements by Democrats. If all you want to do is oppose something then the label of "party of no" is perfect. Anyone who is so blinded to the right or left will never be able to think critically to solve problems. Just opposing Obama is stupid in every way. If Republicans think they can gain back seats this way they will see rolling losses in 10 as well.

That's right. This is the same Obama that thinks we would save gazillions of barrels of oil if we just inflated our tires to the right pressure... He's clueless and I think most of us are figuring that out.

I've put $100,000,000 in perspective already. It's insignificant. Trivial. Meaningless. Eye-wash. In fact, I figure that our government would spend more money trying to figure out which $100,000,000 than it would ever save by cutting that amount.

Actually he was right about the tire inflation thing, just not your exaggeration. AAA and even John McCain had to agree to it the next day after trying to use it to score points.

There's a big difference between cutting consumption, which is absolutely undeniable, and saving the kinds of amounts that Obama claimed at the time. Of course, y'all have covered for him, but the original claim was ludicrous.

No, the original claim is from your condensing a quote and using it for talking points. Hmm, how much oil could be saved? http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/thegreenroom/2009/01/tire-inflation.html

clipped from: www.time.com
The Bush administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 barrels per day by 2030. We use about 20 million barrels per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage by 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone else did, we could reduce demand several percentage points immediately. In other words: Obama is right

No, the original claim is from your condensing a quote and using it for talking points. Hmm, how much oil could be saved? http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/thegreenroom/2009/01/tire-inflation.html

Facts be damned! Reality has a well known liberal bias!

God help us all that these people are even allowed to vote.

If you don't like living with dumb asses leave the country.
The ones here can't figure out how to buy a plane ticket.

Feel free to keep pretending the teabagging is about public money, as opposed to him being black or a Democrat. But bear in mind that we all remember how Republicans equated dissent with anti-Americanism for eight fucking years.

Dished it out. Take it.

To be fair, I think the majority of teabaggers outside of the Deep South object more to the (D) after Obama's name then to his skin color. Of course, sadly, many object to the latter, or to both.

If you don't like living with dumb asses leave the country.
The ones here can't figure out how to buy a plane ticket.

I can't speak for the poster you addressed, but I do plan on leaving the country. I have been planning on it for almost three years.

No, the original claim is from your condensing a quote and using it for talking points. Hmm, how much oil could be saved? http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/thegreenroom/2009/01/tire-inflation.html

what is the cost of getting everyone to inflate their tires more ???
How much money would the government need to spend to get more people to inflate their tires?
We could get the benefit of both. You see drilling offshore produces jobs. Jobs produce revenue. Why not drill off shore and use the revenue from drilling off shore to get people to inflate their tires more ?

I can't speak for the poster you addressed, but I do plan on leaving the country. I have been planning on it for almost three years.

your being detained at the airport as a non citizen. And now we are sending you to Egypt for special interrogation.

your being detained at the airport as a non citizen. And now we are sending you to Egypt for special interrogation.

Hooray! I get to see the pyrami- no, waaaaaait!

*disappears*

Hooray! I get to see the pyrami- no, waaaaaait!

*disappears*

To be honest I think moving to New Hampshire and joining the free state movement might be in order.

what is the cost of getting everyone to inflate their tires more ???

If people actually paid attention, nothing.

To be honest I think moving to Vermont and joining the free state movement might be in order.

New Hampshire. ;)

New Hampshire. ;)

No, gnd had it right. Vermont is the one that has been occaisionally pushing for attempts to break away...

New Hampshire. ;)

shows how serious i am.

No, gnd had it right. Vermont is the one that has been occaisionally pushing for attempts to break away...

Yes, but I thought he meant the Free State Project.

If people actually paid attention, nothing.

HAHAHAH yeah that will be the day.
you can't lower gas prices by depending on people to do what they should being do. Instead you have to look at what the government is capable of.
the government allowing more off shore drilling lowers the gas price and increases revenue.
The governments ability to get people to inflate their tires is limited to an ad campaigns. Those cost money and have limited affect.

Yes, but I thought he meant the Free State Project.

you corrected me.

HAHAHAH yeah that will be the day.
It'd be nice though....
you can't lower gas prices by depending on people to do what they should being do. Instead you have to look at what the government is capable of.
the government allowing more off shore drilling lowers the gas price and increases revenue.
In theory at least. One problem with that though is that is doesn't really address the real problem, which is the fact that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels.
The governments ability to get people to inflate their tires is limited to an ad campaigns. Those cost money and have limited affect.
No argument there.

It'd be nice though....

In theory at least. One problem with that though is that is doesn't really address the real problem, which is the fact that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels.

...

My views has always been lets sit back watch it be used up and let the free market pick another energy source as it does. Of course we should have the government to stop bailing out auto industries that refuse to adapt to the times.

If you don't like living with dumb asses leave the country.
The ones here can't figure out how to buy a plane ticket.

You think there aren't dumb people all over the world? I'll stay here and still love my country. I love it so much I spent 8 year in service to it. In return I got an education at a great school, 15 months in the sand, and a bullet hole in my leg and partial hearing loss in my right ear. You are defending idiots and insulting them at the same time. What's your major angle here?

You think there aren't dumb people all over the world?
The Europeans seem convinced they have none...

I'll stay here and still love my country. I love it so much I spent 8 year in service to it. In return I got an education at a great school, 15 months in the sand, and a bullet hole in my leg and partial hearing loss in my right ear.

I too love this country and served. I spent 6 years in the service, luckily I never had to go to the desert. My brother however is being stop lossed and is about to go on his 3rd tour in Iraq. I appreciate the sacrifice you made, and pray my brother does not have to make it.

You are defending idiots and insulting them at the same time. What's your major angle here?

My angle is have fun, The greatest part about this country we love is we can mock it and mock its people but still be patriots.

what is the cost of getting everyone to inflate their tires more ???
How much money would the government need to spend to get more people to inflate their tires?
We could get the benefit of both. You see drilling offshore produces jobs. Jobs produce revenue. Why not drill off shore and use the revenue from drilling off shore to get people to inflate their tires more ?

My only point here was that Myrmi was being obtuse and intentionally misleading. Of course you can do both. They've been trying to push for drilling off the NJ shore and I'm not against it. I think that if we can extract resources here at home while continuing to respect the environment it's a win win. Getting the most of our resources here as home helps our economy and hopefully then can reduce taxes and spending. I'm not an either/or type of guy. We need to buy ourselves some time while getting towards alternative fuels.

The Europeans seem convinced they have none...

I too love this country and served. I spent 6 years in the service, luckily I never had to go to the desert. My brother however is being stop lossed and is about to go on his 3rd tour in Iraq. I appreciate the sacrifice you made, and pray my brother does not have to make it.


My angle is have fun, The greatest part about this country we love is we can mock it and mock its people but still be patriots.

Oh then good. We're now on the same page.

Edit: May God bless and guide your brother

My only point here was that Myrmi was being obtuse and intentionally misleading. Of course you can do both. They've been trying to push for drilling off the NJ shore and I'm not against it. I think that if we can extract resources here at home while continuing to respect the environment it's a win win. Getting the most of our resources here as home helps our economy and hopefully then can reduce taxes and spending. I'm not an either/or type of guy. We need to buy ourselves some time while getting towards alternative fuels.

Ideally we should turn all off shore drilling rights over to the states. If California doesn't want to drill off shore then they don't have to, meanwhile if New Jersey does by all means allow them. It has worked out great for Texas(we are the only state that gets jurisdiction out to 10 miles, but I say we should get more).

As for the tire thing, I was pointing out while everyone inflating their tires seems to be a simple way to produce results in reality it is not.The government has no effective means to make people to inflate their tires more.
Meanwhile, the government has a means to increase the supply of oil.

As for alternative energy I am a let the market decide type. The same thing happened with Gasoline when the car was introduced, the market picked it because gasoline was the most effective engine. As we run out of oil and the price increases, the market will be driven to pick another means to power vehicles.

Edit: May God bless and guide your brother

Thank you. before the stop loss we were planning to room together while I went to grad school, and he went to undergrad.

God help us all that these people are even allowed to vote.

I could have posted twice as many pictures before getting to the one that actually deals with spending (albeit in an enormously racist fashion), but I couldn't think of enough things to say. I could probably post ten times as many if I had spent more than fifteen minutes saving a few pictures out of boredom.

On the chopping block:
-Pensions for Federal officials
-Federal education spending
-Federal welfare
-All foreign aid
-Corporate welfare & bailouts

Additional changes:
-All National Parks, forests, etc. should be auctioned off or set under 100% State administration.
-Overseas military bases should be closed, and all troops stationed in foreign nations should be recalled to the US except those Marines necessary to guard embassies. The Army should be disbanded and assigned to state National Guard units.

That should be a good start.

Someone doesn't understand the purpose of countercyclical spending...
I think that's the least of his worries.

On the chopping block:
-Pensions for Federal officials
-Federal education spending
-Federal welfare
-All foreign aid
-Corporate welfare & bailouts

Additional changes:
-All National Parks, forests, etc. should be auctioned off or set under 100% State administration.
-Overseas military bases should be closed, and all troops stationed in foreign nations should be recalled to the US except those Marines necessary to guard embassies. The Army should be disbanded and assigned to state National Guard units.

That should be a good start.
Well most of that is idiotic bullshit, but stopping the payment of billions to huge corporations under the guise of helping "small business" would save us some money.

God help us all that these people are even allowed to vote.

No kidding.

On the chopping block:
-Pensions for Federal officials
-Federal education spending
-Federal welfare
-All foreign aid
-Corporate welfare & bailouts

Additional changes:
-All National Parks, forests, etc. should be auctioned off or set under 100% State administration.
-Overseas military bases should be closed, and all troops stationed in foreign nations should be recalled to the US except those Marines necessary to guard embassies. The Army should be disbanded and assigned to state National Guard units.

That should be a good start.
Why not just disband the government and not have a nation anymore? Why do things by half measures?

Why not just disband the government and not have a nation anymore? Why do things by half measures?
Why in the world would restricting the federal government to it's enumerated responsibilities in the Constitution bring on a comment like that?

Why in the world would restricting the federal government to it's enumerated responsibilities in the Constitution bring on a comment like that?

You really think we should disband the military completely? Yeow.

You really think we should disband the military completely? Yeow.
See how much better that question is? There's room between the extremes. Most people recognize that.

See how much better that question is? There's room between the extremes. Most people recognize that.

So you only want to 'restrict the federal government to its enumerated responsibilities' when it comes to programs you dont like.

So you only want to 'restrict the federal government to its enumerated responsibilities' when it comes to programs you dont like.

Um, isn't that the whole point of conservatism?

Um, isn't that the whole point of conservatism?

Blatant hypocrisy? It sure seems like it.

So you only want to 'restrict the federal government to its enumerated responsibilities' when it comes to programs you dont like.
I don't believe I've expressed an opinion here. I've asked a question and followed up on that.

I don't believe I've expressed an opinion here. I've asked a question and followed up on that.
In answer to your question, my remark was a ridiculing of the concept that the best way to run a government is to prevent it from delivering services to the public it is supposed to serve. If a person doesn't want the government doing such things, if they don't want public programs, if they see everything as better if done by private concerns or not at all, then what do we need a government for? And without a government, why bother calling ourselves a nation, if it's every person or community for themselves?

As to your "enumerated" duties guff, I reject that. Anyone with any intellectual honesty whatsoever can see that, in order to carry out the enumerated duties of the government, the government will sometimes have to do things that are not specifically enumerated.

In answer to your question, my remark was a ridiculing of the concept that the best way to run a government is to prevent it from delivering services to the public it is supposed to serve. If a person doesn't want the government doing such things, if they don't want public programs, if they see everything as better if done by private concerns or not at all, then what do we need a government for? And without a government, why bother calling ourselves a nation, if it's every person or community for themselves?

As to your "enumerated" duties guff, I reject that. Anyone with any intellectual honesty whatsoever can see that, in order to carry out the enumerated duties of the government, the government will sometimes have to do things that are not specifically enumerated.
So it's right to let government grow, unabated, in the theory that it's just doing something that needs to be done in order to carry out it's required and permitted functions?

I know that's not what the writers of the Constitution had in mind because they said so. What's changed?

Um, isn't that the whole point of conservatism?

OHHHhh! Now I understand compassionate conservatism.

Thank you!

So it's right to let government grow, unabated, in the theory that it's just doing something that needs to be done in order to carry out it's required and permitted functions?


Can it grow anymore then it has when it was under your parties watch?

I know that's not what the writers of the Constitution had in mind because they said so. What's changed?

They are long dead?

I know that's not what the writers of the Constitution had in mind because they said so. What's changed?
It's not the 18th century?

Folks are trying to look out for more than rich white landowners?

You can now get cheese as a liquid?

You can now get cheese as a liquid?

:D

Society can improve.

Can it grow anymore then it has when it was under your parties watch?



They are long dead?

Wrong on both counts... You falsely assume I belong to, or support the Republican party.

The second answer is also wrong. Why should one's death change the circumstances of a document that they've written? Has some fundamental element of government or human nature changed since the death of Madison, Adams, Jay or others involved in the Constitution?

Wrong on both counts... You falsely assume I belong to, or support the Republican party.

Ahh but given the choice you lean republican.

The second answer is also wrong. Why should one's death change the circumstances of a document that they've written? Has some fundamental element of government or human nature changed since the death of Madison, Adams, Jay or others involved in the Constitution?

Ah? Blacks are no longer property. Blacks have rights. Women can vote. Many things have changed......

So it's right to let government grow, unabated, in the theory that it's just doing something that needs to be done in order to carry out it's required and permitted functions?

I know that's not what the writers of the Constitution had in mind because they said so. What's changed?

False dichotomy. Unabated growth is not the only alternative to preventing the government from delivering basic services.

In addition, I was not aware that you are a psychic medium. Did you use the mystic ouija board to find out what the framers had in mind, or did it come to you in a dream?

Ahh but given the choice you lean republican.



Ah? Blacks are no longer property. Blacks have rights. Women can vote. Many things have changed......
Wrong again, big guy. Given a choice, I oppose Democrats. Not the same thing. And you haven't given any fundamental differences in government or human nature... Nothing that should change why we should abandon the intent of the Constitution's writers, anyway.

False dichotomy. Unabated growth is not the only alternative to preventing the government from delivering basic services.

In addition, I was not aware that you are a psychic medium. Did you use the mystic ouija board to find out what the framers had in mind, or did it come to you in a dream?
Nope, I read the Federalist Papers. Give it a try.

Wrong again, big guy. Given a choice, I oppose Democrats. Not the same thing. And you haven't given any fundamental differences in government or human nature... Nothing that should change why we should abandon the intent of the Constitution's writers, anyway.
So, given a choice, you never choose to oppose Republicans?

Wrong again, big guy. Given a choice, I oppose Democrats. Not the same thing. And you haven't given any fundamental differences in government or human nature... Nothing that should change why we should abandon the intent of the Constitution's writers, anyway.

Because their intent was to create a constitution that would be able to evolve past that point in time?

Nope, I read the Federalist Papers. Give it a try.
I have. Funny how there were also anti-Federalist papers, and funny, too, how many legal and constitutional experts have disagreed on the framers' intent in regards to various clauses all through the nation's history.

But YOU have it all figured out.

So...what's the word for it when psychic mediums work their magic by means of documents -- bibliomancy? Or is it pschometry in this case -- did you just hold a commemorative copy of the Constitution in your hands and wait for the dead to whisper to you?

Also, what does your little claim to phantom authority (in yourself) have to do with my statement that in order to carry out its enumerated duties, the government sometimes has to do things that are not enumerated?

Is it your contention that the framers intended for the government to do certain things but did not intend for it to take the necessary actions to do them?

Nope, I read the Federalist Papers. Give it a try.

Uh, considering many of the Federalist papers argue for a strong Federal government, Id wadger that you actually havent.

Well most of that is idiotic bullshit, but stopping the payment of billions to huge corporations under the guise of helping "small business" would save us some money.

Why not just disband the government and not have a nation anymore? Why do things by half measures?

Everything I mentioned should be cut. Each item lies outside the legitimate authority of the Federal government as specified under the Constitution. The elimination of those items would in no way impede the legitimate administration of the federal government.

Everything I mentioned should be cut. Each item lies outside the legitimate authority of the Federal government as specified under the Constitution. The elimination of those items would in no way impede the legitimate administration of the federal government.

There is the pesky matter of the necessary and proper clause.

As to your "enumerated" duties guff, I reject that. Anyone with any intellectual honesty whatsoever can see that, in order to carry out the enumerated duties of the government, the government will sometimes have to do things that are not specifically enumerated.Necessary and Proper Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause)

The second answer is also wrong. Why should one's death change the circumstances of a document that they've written? Has some fundamental element of government or human nature changed since the death of Madison, Adams, Jay or others involved in the Constitution?No, it's more that people now recognize that government and human nature as Madison, Adams, et al conceived them is invalid and mostly discredited.

Everything I mentioned should be cut. Each item lies outside the legitimate authority of the Federal government as specified under the Constitution. The elimination of those items would in no way impede the legitimate administration of the federal government.

Well, Im glad youve figured out what the proper role of the Federal Government is as outlined by the Constitution. Becase all those scholars and lawlyers out there, you know, those people way smarter and more knowledgable on the topic the both of us, cant seem to figure it out. Hell, the founding fathers didnt evern agree with what their own damn Constitution meant. And its not like its intentionally vague in a lot of places or anything.

You really ought to inform them:rolleyes:

Everything I mentioned should be cut. Each item lies outside the legitimate authority of the Federal government as specified under the Constitution. The elimination of those items would in no way impede the legitimate administration of the federal government.
Sez you.

I sez that what you want to cut ARE legitimate functions of a national government.

Shall we repair to the Thunderdome?



There is the pesky matter of the necessary and proper clause.

Necessary and Proper Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause)


Thank you.

The tea parties were about deficit reduction? Easy way to get serious about that: raise taxes.

Well, it's more that they want to protest wasteful spending.......by buying millions of bags of tea, brewing them, and dumping them out. A $700 billion so-called "bailout" that does nothing but fatten the already fat is OK, but improved energy technology, better roads, better schools? That's just stealing from the taxpayers.

Wrong on both counts... You falsely assume I belong to, or support the Republican party.

We assume that because you have been spouting all their BS.

In answer to your question, my remark was a ridiculing of the concept that the best way to run a government is to prevent it from delivering services to the public it is supposed to serve. If a person doesn't want the government doing such things, if they don't want public programs, if they see everything as better if done by private concerns or not at all, then what do we need a government for? And without a government, why bother calling ourselves a nation, if it's every person or community for themselves?

As to your "enumerated" duties guff, I reject that. Anyone with any intellectual honesty whatsoever can see that, in order to carry out the enumerated duties of the government, the government will sometimes have to do things that are not specifically enumerated.

Wow, I think I just figured out your real name. Are you really Karl Rove or Dick Cheney:eek:?

Why not just disband the government and not have a nation anymore? Why do things by half measures?

Methinks LT is a minarchist, not an anarchist. ;)

Wow, I think I just figured out your real name. Are you really Karl Rove or Dick Cheney:eek:?
Sorry, I don't speak troll. Bother somebody else.

Sorry, I don't speak troll. Bother somebody else.

Not it!

Sorry, I don't speak troll. Bother somebody else.

Didn't your school offer courses in "troll?" :confused:

Nothing that should change why we should abandon the intent of the Constitution's writers, anyway.
The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the intent of the Founding Fathers should not be binding on subsequent generations: yes, that issue did arise right at the beginning, and your position was rejected.

Necessary and Proper Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause)

The MPOP (Magical Piece Of Paper) has its share of horrific parts, but the necessary and proper clause has to be the worst.

No, it's more that people now recognize that government and human nature as Madison, Adams, et al conceived them is invalid and mostly discredited.

How did they conceive government and human nature, and why was their conception invalid and mostly discredited?

The MPOP (Magical Piece Of Paper) has its share of horrific parts, but the necessary and proper clause has to be the worst.


Why? Because it has allowed the government to do things like establish public education or assistance for the poor? Because until very recently it has shown only occasional inclinations to expand its power in any way that really hurts individual liberty (and I mean for real, not in the usual "tax is theft" bullshit way I usually hear from complainers), and all of those fits were quickly put down by the normal political functions and shifts of the US system as devised by the Constitution that includes the necessary and proper clause.

Why? Because it has allowed the government to do things like establish public education or assistance for the poor? Because until very recently it has shown only occasional inclinations to expand its power in any way that really hurts individual liberty (and I mean for real, not in the usual "tax is theft" bullshit way I usually hear from complainers), and all of those fits were quickly put down by the normal political functions and shifts of the US system as devised by the Constitution that includes the necessary and proper clause.

The Anti-Federalists had the right idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause#Early_controversy).

The Anti-Federalists had the right idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause#Early_controversy).
That link was already posted, and that is your argument (agreement with the anti-federalists) but it is not an answer to my question.

That link was already posted, and that is your argument (agreement with the anti-federalists) but it is not an answer to my question.

You asked why, and I gave my reason.

You asked why, and I gave my reason.
No, you gave a link to someone else's opinion. That tells me little about what you think. Remember the words of our middle school text book exercise pages, and "put the answer into your own words."

No, you gave a link to someone else's opinion. That tells me little about what you think. Remember the words of our middle school text book exercise pages, and "put the answer into your own words."

Because the wording of the necessary and proper clause is so broad and ambiguous that it can be interpreted to justify almost any government program, no matter how abhorrent it is. Naturally, the government will never resist a chance to expand its size and scope, and will jump at any opportunity to do so. They can then "justify" their actions by claiming that it's "necessary" and "proper."

Because the wording of the necessary and proper clause is so broad and ambiguous that it can be interpreted to justify almost any government program, no matter how abhorrent it is. Naturally, the government will never resist a chance to expand its size and scope, and will jump at any opportunity to do so. They can then "justify" their actions by claiming that it's "necessary" and "proper."
If you read my first post to you, you will see that I anticipated that. You may take that prior statement as my answer.

If you read my first post to you, you will see that I anticipated that. You may take that prior statement as my answer.

The fact that the Constitution was (allegedly) supposed to limit the federal government further underscores how useless it is. The U.S. federal government is now the biggest government in history, by a huge margin. The Constitution has completely failed to restrain it, but of course, this should surprise no one. Constitutions are inherently useless, anyway. What's to stop a government from simply ignoring one? If a government chooses to, it can ignore its own constitution, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

The MPOP (Magical Piece Of Paper) has its share of horrific parts, but the necessary and proper clause has to be the worst.Eh, I'm going to have to go with that whole slavery thing as being the worst.

How did they conceive government and human nature, and why was their conception invalid and mostly discredited?They typically began from a concept of natural rights, which while better than the Divine Right of Kings, has no more logical backing. With that in mind, they then conceived of a notion of government that protects these rights that people supposedly have, and decided that government should be small in order to not infringe upon these natural rights.
In actuality, rights are created by the social contract, and require government interference to protect. Ergo, there is a correlation between the number of rights one has and the size of the government one lives under.

The fact that the Constitution was (allegedly) supposed to limit the federal government further underscores how useless it is.
I fail to see how it is useless for that purpose, considering the number of times in history it has been used in precisely that way.

The U.S. federal government is now the biggest government in history, by a huge margin.
The USA is also the biggest economy and one of the largest nations and one of the most powerful nations in history as well. You seem to lack a sense of proportion.

The Constitution has completely failed to restrain it, but of course, this should surprise no one.
The Constitution is not supposed to restrain the size of government. It is supposed to restrain the powers of government. It does that just fine, while still allowing for a government that can do the nation's work.

Constitutions are inherently useless, anyway. What's to stop a government from simply ignoring one? If a government chooses to, it can ignore its own constitution, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
If that is your view, then your argument is pointless. There is no way that you will ever consider any evidence that would either contradict your view or explain how a constitutional system works. Your anti-constitution bias closes your mind, and there is little point in anyone discussing it with you.