And it unquestionably removed Republicans from office because of overspending which the party itself hasn’t come to terms with. And since the Democrats (headed by Obama) saw fit to pass the pork laden “stimulus” bill that went nowhere the Tea Party has picked up Democrats and Libertarians. Thisis the driving force behind the Tea Party and the politicians who created it will answer for it at the polls.
For you to accept responsibility for your own statements? Apparently so. You said birtherism started with the Clinton campaign staff. That is false, as you know and should have known then, and would have known if you’d bothered even to read your own cites. It would be very easy for a person with a basic respect for fact to say so.
Here’s another hint for you, since you’re off to such a memorably bad start on this board already: When you’re shown you’re wrong, especially when your purpose in making the statement was a cheap gotcha attempt that blows up in your face, it really does not help at all to try to excuse yourself with “Well, other people say dumb things too!”. Maybe you’ll learn from this fail, maybe not - based on your recent history, the latter is probably a better bet.
You’re a teacher, right? What do you tell your students about taking responsibility?
For instance?
You can also drop the silly falsehood about affordable care being opposed by the majority of Americans. Every poll (except for the Fox-bubble’s Rasmussen, always worth 10-20 points extra for the GOP) that has asked the question has found a substantial majority thinking it’s either about right* or didn’t go far enough*. Has that never been pointed out to you before?
Now do try to accept responsibility for your own statements, while we’re at it.
Oh, come on. In terms of issues in the 2008 election spending was barely on the table.
I grabbed the next poll I found. Split down the middle. Here’s a gallup poll with a slim margin of approval.
The reality of the bill is that it raised the cost of health care. I and all my unemployed friends watched their bill shoot up when it was passed. It went up because it forced insurance companies to write broader policies that took in everybody and everything. We lost some of the ability to pick a policy that was tailored to our needs.
Since the provisions requiring broad policies haven’t gone into effect yet, you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. Or that of your unemployed friends that somehow have private health insurance.
Except for restoring coverage to children under 26, and elimination of existing-condition denials, those provisions aren’t in place yet. You do NOT yet have to buy a policy if you choose to make the rest of us pay for your ER care instead.
The purpose of the bill, if you’ll bother to recall, was to expand the availability of affordable coverage to most of the uncovered. For them, the cost certainly does come down.
Good to see you’re off the talking-point list now. Can you stay there?
The Republican party was being shredded on the radio talk show circuit for overspending. They didn’t listen and now some of them are employed elsewhere.
The reason that it was born on the Republican side is that nobody expects Democrats to reign in spending. The Tea Party is gaining crossover voters from Democrats because there are still people in that party who understand what a budget is and expect their representatives to act responsibly.
I realize that’s a foreign concept to you but some people actually live within their means and can visualize the repercussions of high dept ratios and what that means to the future of the country.
Rep. Rhonda Storm refused to call Obama president. She referred to him as Senator Obama, then Mr.Obama then the messiah.
Gingrich who is debating for president right now, called Obama a socialist. McCain also did. Palin another Repub presidential hopeful, has called Obama a socialist. Roger Ailes has done so too. The former head of The Party Steele, called him a socialist. Jim DeMint has too. Broun from Florida got press for doing the same thing. Alan West is also in the group.
Do the Repubs accuse Obama of being a socialist? Your damn right they do. They also are pretty damn stupid.
Name calling is what they do.
And that Fox spent half their air time promoting it, including sponsoring “FNC Tea Party Rallies”.
Cite?
It is not a foreign concept to anyone who lived through the Clinton years and the creation of an actual surplus, except to those who limited their information intake to Murdoch outlets.
Children under 26? Really? Should we advance the voting age to 27?
:rolleyes: How is that even a debate point? It’s going to happen unless you’re counting on it being repealed. People who were already taking responsibility for their health care were saddled with the extra costs.
Wow, talking about the pot calling the kettle black. You can’t think of anything to debate so you revert to ridicule without argument. The purpose of the bill was to saddle businesses with costs that have nothing to do with commerce. that will mean a reduction of both wages and choices for their employees.
Businesses are asking for temporary waivers while they try and deal with the extra costs associated with it and the economy is suffering because of it. The reality of the bill is that it raised costs to those purchasing insurance when in fact it was suppose to reduce costs. The reality of the bill is that it raised the cost of doing business.
OMG do you not know who creates the budget? It’s Congress, not the President. The surplus was created by Newt Gingrich’s Congress. Bill Clinton’s only contribution was to refuse the bill until additional spending was ADDED.
That makes this mess the Republicans’ fault, you know that right? 
Wrong again. The source was the 1993 tax bill that every single Republican voted against.
I had hoped you were off the talking points.
Really? Let’s play: Bush Administration or Nazis?
-
This political group used the public hysteria casued by the destruction of an iconic building by terrorists to marginalize their political opponents and push through their own agenda. Some say they desotryed the building themselves, although there is no proof of this.
-
They invaded another country under the pretext that it was necessary for national security, although not before going through the pretense that they were willing to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the situation via the international community. It quickly became apparent that the invasion had always been inevitable regardless of the outcome of the discussions.
-
They set up camps where they detained people without benefit of law and subjected them to torture and deprivation. These people were taken from their home country and countries which had been invaded, as well as being handed over by governments in allied countries.
I keed, of course. But my point, which was only ever intended to be tangential, is that the substance was there. No, the Bush administration were not Nazis but the protests in which they were called that were based on something they’d actually done. The left didn’t start out on Inauguration Day 2001 with the “Bush is a Nazi” signs. He earned that ire. The Obama detractors were already teed up with the “Socialist” jibes long before he’d even taken the Oath of Office (either time).
“The results in Table 5 show that ideological conservatism was by far the strongest predictor of Tea Party support. In addition to conservatism, however, both racial resentment and dislike for Barack Obama had significant effects on support for the Tea Party. These two variables had much stronger effects than party identification.”
And even when they aren’t!!!
Plus the best thing… you all get to define the term.
SO: define the term.
This is my objection to this abortion of a “debate”: if the OP refuses to state what a racist is, and WHO current racists are, and what racism is (and isn’t), then we haven’t yet reached the starting point of a debate here. This is just a lot of whining about “Why don’t people like me more? No FAAAAAAIIIIR!!!”
For the purposes of this discussion
Regards,
Shodan
Seeing how liberals are quite critical of Obama, #1 is hardly true. And seeing how you have never personally experienced #2, I wonder how you came up with that one.
Nobody who wasn’t born yesterday can possibly expect Republicans to rein in spending either, and I would expect these farsighted folks you’re talking about to realize that more than anyone.
Seriously, dude, give it up. You’re throwing out nuttier and nuttier claims because you don’t want to admit something that quite literally everyone in this thread knows: that the Democratic win in 2008 had nothing to do with spending or the debt.
Indeed, how could it? You said yourself that “nobody expects Democrats to reign [sic] in spending”, and yet most of the country went for Obama.