Quote from: walkstall on November 25, 2010, 12:03:52 PM
Through 100.000 dollars out a window in a big city and see what will happen.   You will see just how fast Progressive will move.   ;D   LOL

;D ;D ;D
And just how fast they'll run you over to get it.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 04:50:59 AM
You've accidentally hit the finger on the uvula, taxed.
The GOPP is the equivalent of political bulimia.
First they binge for 30 on the carcass of the middle class
and then they purge under the guise of the teabaggers.

Either way, they make a mess of things and then they
leave it to the Progressives to clean up their messes.
Wherefore art thou, oh Progressive saviour?

Beau, do you ever tire of your delusions.Obama and his cohorts are in the process of squeezing the middle class through legislation. Are you so blinded by your partisan rhetoric to see? Just who prey tell will pay for these socialist programs with the last dime of their disposable income? Do you think the wealthy cares if their utilities double or they pay six bucks for a gallon of gas? What was the first order of business when he took office? Increase the tax on tobacco products. Who will that affect the most? The working class and the poor. The government always goes after the simple pleasures of the working class masses. Obama's delusional lie about not raising taxes on the middle class is just a lie, covered up with smoke and mirrors. He's an Alinskyite, they will attempt to dazzle them with the promise of change, all the while they will be stabbed in the back by the Marxist elites, who will never subject themselves to the same rules as the ruled. Their is no Utopia under a socialist system, only misery for the governed under the thumb of government control. Obama sold you a lie, he is no better than the corporate monster you despise. He is their enabler.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 04:50:59 AM
You've accidentally hit the finger on the uvula, taxed.
The GOPP is the equivalent of political bulimia.
First they binge for 30 on the carcass of the middle class
and then they purge under the guise of the teabaggers.

Either way, they make a mess of things and then they
leave it to the Progressives to clean up their messes.
Wherefore art thou, oh Progressive saviour?

Progressive and Savior are contradictory. Progressive and Tyranny are compatible.

Question:

How do "Progressives" define Progress? AND How do they measure success towards same?

"WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THEIR PROGRESS"


Billy

Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on November 25, 2010, 05:12:05 PM
Question:

How do "Progressives" define Progress? AND How do they measure success towards same?

"WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THEIR PROGRESS"


Billy

Answer: Their governance consumes the total wealth of the country to sustain their progressive government.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 08:13:29 AM

As for the economy, no POTUS could have dug us out of the hole
that we have put ourselves in any faster than Obama can or will if indeed
he ever decides to do so.

The problem with this POTUS is that he doesn't realize that no one can dig themselves out of hole. A shovel only works in one direction -- down, and every swing of the shovel makes the hole bigger.

When the dems took control of congress in 2006, they switched from using a shovel to a backhoe. The debt escalated at a much faster rate. The dems were blaming the debt on the cost of the war in Iraq and Afganistan. Even with the war debt, the biggest portion of the debt was the excessive spending of the dems and the Fannie-Freddie fiasco. Fannie and Freddie continue to be a financial burden on the taxpayers and is a safe haven (they became board members at Fannie and Freddie) for all of the dems that were once a part of the Clinton administration. People like Rahm Emmanuel, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank's boytoy and Jamie Gorelick gave themselves healthy bonuses as board members. The information is readily available to anyone who wishes to explore. 

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 25, 2010, 07:34:06 PM
When the dems took control of congress in 2006, they switched from using a shovel to a backhoe. The debt escalated at a much faster rate. The dems were blaming the debt on the cost of the war in Iraq and Afganistan. Even with the war debt, the biggest portion of the debt was the excessive spending of the dems and the Fannie-Freddie fiasco. Fannie and Freddie continue to be a financial burden on the taxpayers and is a safe haven (they became board members at Fannie and Freddie) for all of the dems that were once a part of the Clinton administration. People like Rahm Emmanuel, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank's boytoy and Jamie Gorelick gave themselves healthy bonuses as board members. The information is readily available to anyone who wishes to explore.

When the Dems took control of Congress in 2006, Bush still had the VETO pen, and he obviously didn't use it enough.  Bush is just as complicit as Congress is for EVERYTHING that happened from January/2007 to January/2009.

I'll give you partial credit for that response.  ;) Bush did have the veto pen - true. But both houses of congress were well in the majority to override any veto. Also, congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.

Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2010, 08:53:23 AM
Husein single handed, killed the so called Progressive movement, by force feeding a sleeping public, only to awaken from the choking.

hahaha, so true.  Instead of a few drops of socialism every night with a medicine dropper into the mouths of the sleeping public, they woke up choking with a firehose shoved down their throats!!

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 26, 2010, 10:49:22 AM
I'll give you partial credit for that response.  ;) Bush did have the veto pen - true. But both houses of congress were well in the majority to override any veto. Also, congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.

Love your spunk, SS, but Congress needs a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto. (That would be 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate.) Yeah, there were nice Democrat majorities 2006-2010, but never veto-killers. GWB could have really slowed things down via the veto, which by the way has the power to de-fund vetoed bills, but he didn't.

It's the same problem the repealers face with ObamaCare for the next two years. Repeal of ObamaCare might get done in the House, and by some minor miracle in the Senate, but the Kenyan in the White House would instantly veto any repeal bill, and there's no 2/3 override vote in either house of Congress.

That's exactly why the de-funders stand a better chance!

Quote from: tbone0106 on November 26, 2010, 03:01:14 PM
Love your spunk, SS, but Congress needs a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto. (That would be 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate.) Yeah, there were nice Democrat majorities 2006-2010, but never veto-killers. GWB could have really slowed things down via the veto, which by the way has the power to de-fund vetoed bills, but he didn't.

It's the same problem the repealers face with ObamaCare for the next two years. Repeal of ObamaCare might get done in the House, and by some minor miracle in the Senate, but the Kenyan in the White House would instantly veto any repeal bill, and there's no 2/3 override vote in either house of Congress.

That's exactly why the de-funders stand a better chance!

I was going to straighten out surfer on the veto override law, but you did it for me.  Thanks!

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on November 26, 2010, 05:08:24 PM
I was going to straighten out surfer on the veto override law, but you did it for me.  Thanks!

Mea Culpa!  I stand corrected. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. Maybe 2012 will provide me with what I am looking for.

I don't want to be second guessing why Bush didn't use the veto when there appeared to be times that he should have. I'd like to see if he explains that in his book. Haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 26, 2010, 06:21:56 PM
Mea Culpa!  I stand corrected. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. Maybe 2012 will provide me with what I am looking for.

I don't want to be second guessing why Bush didn't use the veto when there appeared to be times that he should have. I'd like to see if he explains that in his book. Haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Why not second guess Bush on MANY of the things that he did, didn't do, should have done, and should not have done?  Because he is a Republican?  Because he is not Barack Obama?  Nope, Bush does not get the benefit of the doubt, at least not with me.  He made many mistakes.  The difference is that the marxist news media made sure that Bush was held accountable and made to pay a price for his mistakes, while the Kenyan makes mistakes and gets away with them.

ALL of these politicians need to have their feet held to the fire, regardless of political affiliation.  This country of ours is VERY screwed up right now.  NOBODY in Washington, D.C. should get a pass or a "get out of jail free" card.   

I totally agree with what you are thinking but I don't see that I'm in a position to challenge decisions that Bush made even though I personally disagree with what he did. I'll give you an example:
The chart below shows the deficits for the years of 2003 to 2010. In 2007 the new congress was sworn in with a democratic majority in both houses. While the Iraq spending increased slightly due to the troop surge, the domestic deficit decreased to its lowest point in the 8 year period charted. Notice what happens to the deficit the year after the congressional change and again in 2009 after Obama is POTUS. The deficit sharply increases, on whose watch? Did the democrats do anything to control the deficit? No! Did it start to increase during the time that a democrat congress controlled the spending? Yes. Could Bush have used his veto pen to severely impact the deficit during the time the democrat majority controlled the spending? Maybe, but to what extent?