Coburn: Deficit spending is bigger moral issue than abortion

[Gan]

Coburn: Deficit spending is bigger moral issue than abortion By Mike Soraghan November 02, 2007

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Congress’s deficit spending has become a moral issue surpassing abortion because it saddles future generations with massive debt before they’re born.

“The greatest moral issue of our time isn’t abortion, it’s robbing our next generation of opportunity,” Coburn told reporters at a breakfast meeting Thursday at the National Press Club. “You’re going to save a child from being aborted so they can be born into a debtor’s prison?”

The conservative Republican also criticized his own party, saying voters bounced the GOP from office for their hypocrisy. “It’s not a bad thing power changed last year,” said Coburn, who also criticized President Bush for not doing enough to curb spending.

“He hasn’t been the ideal president when it comes to limited federal spending,” Coburn said.

Congress’s failure to respond to voters calls into question its own legitimacy, he said. “If we have only 11 percent support, are we a legitimate government?” he asked, before adding, “The 11 percent who have confidence in us, what hole are they in?”

Coburn predicted President Bush will give in on some policy points in order to force Congress to cut its spending down to the level he has targeted.

“He’s not going to blink,” Coburn said. “He may well give some policy to get the spending down.”

He explained that he thinks it is in Bush’s best political interests to stick to his threat to veto bills that exceed the spending levels he set because he developed a reputation for accommodating the big-spending desires of previous Republican Congresses.

Coburn, a physician who served in the House before he was elected in 2004, has rankled the collegiality of the Senate by putting roughly 80 holds on bills for new heritage areas. He even placed a hold on a bill designed to close a loophole that allowed Cho Seung-Hui to buy the gun he used in his deadly shooting spree at Virginia Tech this year.

Quizzed about his holds, Coburn reached into his pocket and brought out a card he carries with a printout displaying each of the bills on which he has a hold and its author.

The Virginia Tech shooting is an example, he said, of how lawmakers’ hunger for earmarks has real-world consequences. He said the federal government’s background-check system is authorized for $200 million, but Congress has appropriated only $10 million.

“Did we buy earmarks instead of doing what we were supposed to do?” he said.
__________________________________________________ ____

:clap:

[TheEschaton]

Nice. A conservative Republican who seems to make sense.

[Daniel]

Too bad Coburn is a tool. Alot of his 80 holds are ridiculous and without merit.

[radamanthys]

Such as?

[Seran]

One thing is certain, this man is extremely consistant with his voting for excessive domestic spending. At least in that manner he is fiscally conservative.

If you look at his voting record however, he has voted nearly 100% to fund bills sposored, or supported by the Bush administration, and is woefully pro-war.

Sheeple.

[Warriorbird]

It's funny to see a Republican going on and on about deficit spending.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/index.html

[Gan]

So how many threads are you going to spam the same link over?

[Warriorbird]

Got a few more to talk about how fiscally conservative Republicans are? It's like...I appreciate the basic economic policies...it's like the Republicans used to complain about Clinton...

What precisely are we doing with the surplus?

The other thread was regarding the hidden war costs portion. I just stumbled over this...and given how much QQing goes on over "Source please!" I figured I'd save you the trouble.

[Gan]

Well thank God we've established that Wars are expensive.


WHEW!

[Warriorbird]

Imagine how much better we'd be doing if that had come out as reduced tax burden?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

He's talking some sense but he still needs to pull his head out of his ass. He's one of the people to introduce "parental notification laws" about birth control all the while being against abortion. Let's make it harder for women to have safe sex when they're younger and not allow them an out if they get pregnant easier because of that fact! :clap:

Way to go staying the hell out of people's lives, small government and all that jazz.

All "ABORTION IS A HUGE MORAL ISSUE" aside, I happen to agree about the ridiculous amounts of spending (heh, if it weren't for the damn social issues I'd be a republican given my views on how the Government should spend money) but he was a part of the problem. He was a staunch Bush supporter and supported the war even when it turned out to look like the War was pretty much a massive money sapper. It's good that he's not sitting around with his thumb up his ass yelling BUSH IS RITE!! but what exactly is he going to do about it? He has always been staunchly against earmarks which is fine but that alone isn't the main issue here as that isn't where all the "real life" consequences come from nor the main cause of our ridiculously massive deficit.

[Gan]

Imagine how much better we'd be doing if that had come out as reduced tax burden?

LOL

Look how much money we could have saved if we had not gone to war in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War...

Imagine how much we can save if we just disband all military.

Imagine how much we can save if we just disband congress.

Imagine what America would be if we just invested solely in domestic social programs...

Imagine, imagine, imagine.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

LOL

Look how much money we could have saved if we had not gone to war in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War...

Imagine how much we can save if we just disband all military.

Imagine how much we can save if we just disband congress.

Imagine what America would be if we just invested solely in domestic social programs...

Imagine, imagine, imagine.

It's not so much that we went to war though, Gan.

It's that we went to war in the WRONG PLACE-- we went to war without a clear-cut plan, and we stayed in that war and mishandled that war until it degenerated into one extremely expensive clusterfuck, and now we're pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[Warriorbird]

Suggesting that the current Iraq War even belongs in the same category as World War 2 is patently ridiculous. Heck...I didn't even need to post this post.

The irony in "No... we can't fund a stupid little kids insurance program...but we can spend 1.6 trillion on Iraq!" is vast.

[Gan]

It's not so much that we went to war though, Gan.

It's that we went to war in the WRONG PLACE-- we went to war without a clear-cut plan, and we stayed in that war and mishandled that war until it degenerated into one extremely expensive clusterfuck, and now we're pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don't.

No, we're talking about the cost of the war. Not if it was wrong or right, or how its been managed. ;) Please keep up with the thread.


Suggesting that the current Iraq War even belongs in the same category as World War 2 is patently ridiculous. Heck...I didn't even need to post this post.

The irony in "No... we can't fund a stupid little kids insurance program...but we can spend 1.6 trillion on Iraq!" is vast.

The irony is you not understanding the reason why I listed ALL wars the US has been in since the Civil War.

Its a no brainer that there would have been more funds available for domestic and other programs if we had not gone to war. Its also a foregone conclusion that the timing of the 2003 tax cut and our jumping off into Iraq was not the best thing to do. Bottom line is that Congress and the White House will spend our tax money on whatever the flavor of the month is depending on who's holding the purse strings. Just because you dont agree with how its spent doesnt necessarily make it wrong. It just means you differ in opinion.

[Sean of the Thread]

Suggesting that the current Iraq War even belongs in the same category as World War 2 is patently ridiculous. Heck...I didn't even need to post this post.

The irony in "No... we can't fund a stupid little kids insurance program...but we can spend 1.6 trillion on Iraq!" is vast.

There were people that called wwii rediculous too. They're known as idiots even to this day in fact.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

No, we're talking about the cost of the war. Not if it was wrong or right, or how its been managed. ;) Please keep up with the thread.

So staying in a war for too long and mishandling it, like I said, doesn't cost money?

It's free to just fuck everything up because of crap intelligence and lingering far too long-- no way that's what's costing us money. None at all.

I think you're the one who needs to keep up.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

There were people that called wwii rediculous too. They're known as idiots even to this day in fact.

:rofl:

Yes because in 50 years we will all look back at the few who continue to support the Iraq war as heroes and the rest of the American population as idiots.

[Warriorbird]

Way to me too on "Iraq = WW2" Sean2.

Saddam is totally the same as Hitler. One would think a former member of the military would be a little more intelligent than that.


Its a no brainer that there would have been more funds available for domestic and other programs if we had not gone to war. Its also a foregone conclusion that the timing of the 2003 tax cut and our jumping off into Iraq was not the best thing to do. Bottom line is that Congress and the White House will spend our tax money on whatever the flavor of the month is depending on who's holding the purse strings.

:chuckles: Yeah. The Republicans have shown they're even less fiscally responsible than the Democrats. Sadly Ron Paul is insane. I'd give a lot for a somewhat rational Libertarian candidate without grievous Republican social flaws.

[Gan]

:rofl:

Yes because in 50 years we will all look back at the few who continue to support the Iraq war as heroes and the rest of the American population as idiots.

While you have your crystal ball out, can you tell me the lottery numbers for Saturday?

[Sean of the Thread]

ffs those two are just blind sheep retards.

WB I don't like to crack on you much but take your "expert" political war opinion back to the movie theatre and collect some tickets and perhaps ask some of the more astute customers for tips on the subject.

I won't even crack on narcisnoses expert opinion because she's just a young dumb twat that needs to grow up a bit before she understands anything as complicated as national defense or war or well fuck anything political as far as her posts indicate.

[Daniel]

I think the main issue with IRaq is that if those who claim to love fiscal responsibility so much, had pulled their head long enough out of their ass to realize that you need some checks and balances before handing over a blank check..then we probably would have saved ourselves about 40 billion that was fleeced from the government by contractors.

[Sean of the Thread]

The contracting issue is probably the biggest fucking problem I've ever had with situation. Absolutely shitty.

[Daniel]

For me, it's that and inadequate and unrealistic planning.

[Warriorbird]

Those are pretty high on my list. That and feeling it was the wrong pre-emptive war if we were even going to have one. I really hope the Pakistan situation gets resolved. I'm not against war in general. I'm not against the military. I've sat in on a number of JAG info sessions. I'm just pretty disillusioned about this particular war and people trying to waive around 'conservative' street cred.

[Gan]

Its kind of like the Democrats preaching about ethics?

[Daniel]

Its kind of like the Democrats preaching about ethics?

Last time I checked, Ethics was the hallmark of the Republican party. Either way, that has nothing to do with the point being mad. Feel free to turn the discussion into whatever you want. The fact is, billions of dollars have been wasted on the administration of this war, and that is a fact that transcends partisan politics.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm in no position as an average citizen to call it wasted with any certainty.

For all I know this "wasted money on a stupid war" saved our way of life and country. Like it or not.

Just saying.

[Daniel]

I'm in no position as an average citizen to call it wasted with any certainty.

For all I know this "wasted money on a stupid war" saved our way of life and country. Like it or not.

Just saying.

Sean, I've consistently been "Pro-war" on these boards and that has not changed. However, I'd say getting fleeced out of *billions* for contractors that did not do the job that they were supposed to do "wasted".

[Daniel]

I don't have a news link to it, but a couple of days ago Harry Reid bundled all of the bills that Coburn has on hold into one massive 400 page document and submitted it to the house.

It's largely expected to pass as almost all of these bills have wide bi-partisan support. So, Harry Reid just effectively told Coburn to go fuck himself.

Harry Reid is my new hero.

[Daniel]

Whoops. Sorry for being lazy http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3rjLUBrDnU7l0doiOdfCMcOPZ2AD922I04O1

[Gan]

Live from the Capitol, it’s Saturday night with Tom Coburn — but the feisty senator from Oklahoma is promising that there will be precious few laughs.

Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes that a so-called Coburn Omnibus on Saturday will break loose dozens of bills that Coburn has objected to by passing them all at once. Coburn vows that the effort will be met with unyielding opposition.

“I’m going to push every procedural tactic that’s available. Every one,” Coburn said. For strategic reasons, he wouldn’t elaborate. “I’m not about to talk about them. ... I’ve got some they haven’t seen in a few years.”

If he follows through on his threat, the gears of the Senate could grind to a halt, said Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001. “It’s child’s play,” said Dove, who’s now an attorney with Patton Boggs and a professor of political science at George Washington University. “If he has good parliamentary advice, he can tie the Senate up in knots. Absolute knots.”

For example, said Dove, everything in the Senate is amendable, and amendments must be read unless there is unanimous consent to skip them. “I’ve seen people send the U.S. Code to the desk as an amendment. And then the amendment will be read,” Dove said, adding that the parliamentary possibilities are “just endless.”

Coburn is holding up roughly 100 bills by using an informal Senate procedural maneuver. By placing a hold, Coburn indicates that he will not agree to move a bill by unanimous consent, which means that valuable floor time would need to be taken up debating and voting on the bill. The tactic can give fits to the Senate leadership and backers of the bills. “This is a package of critical bills that have passed the House of Representatives, cleared committees in the Senate and enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

Coburn could find himself in a lonely place on what wags in Senate hallways are dubbing Coburn Weekend. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), who is gifted with the retiree’s privilege of speaking freely, said that, “in the end,” his Republican colleagues will support the Reid effort and split with Coburn. Though lumping many unrelated bills together is unusual in the consensus-driven Senate, he said, so many senators have bills in the omnibus that it will be difficult to oppose.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said that he couldn’t speak for the caucus but that a “whole lot of people have bills in there. … Every senator thinks his or her bills are the most important.”

Hatch said that, as a fiscal conservative, he supports Coburn’s efforts to block spending when it’s not offset by cuts elsewhere. “I fight hard to uphold his right to do that,” he said. “I have a lot of empathy for that position.”

Warm feelings aside, Hatch said he’ll be voting with Reid this weekend. One of his own bills is in that package, he said.

Coburn has taken the opportunity to press his case that most of the bills he’s blocking either duplicate existing programs or add spending that isn’t offset elsewhere. Taken separately, the bills appear to amount to little. But piled together, as they are in the Coburn Omnibus, soon we’re talking about real money, as the saying goes.

Coburn’s analysis of the Reid package estimates that the bill authorizes more than $11 billion in new spending. Opponents counter that the spending is merely authorized, not appropriated. Coburn insists, however, that “it’s not something they don’t intend to spend.”

Parliamentary tricks aside, Coburn fully concedes that the Reid package will be tough for his GOP colleagues to oppose. “He’s creating a package that makes it politically hard to vote against,” Coburn said, noting that more than half of the bills he’s holding up aren’t in the package, and some that he hasn’t held were included. “It ruins some of the camaraderie in the Senate.”

Not at all, said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). “We love Tom Coburn so much, we’re going to stick around all weekend to vote on his bills,” she said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11974.html

[crb]

wars tend to help the economy.

Heres what I don't get about Democrats... they're always tax and spend, tax and spend, tax on spend. Lets tax the rich, and redo that same road we redid last year with the money, giving (union) jobs to people who can then pay union dues to their union who can then run 527's for us when we campaign next so we can create more taxes and then create more union jobs so they get more dues and we get even bigger 527s.... etc etc

War spending should be a democrat's wet dream then, unlike more or less every other industry, our defense industry is not outsourced for security reasons, most of it is all built right here at home (a little bit comes from allies like Britain it is true). Think of all the jobs at a Boeing or a Lockheed plant.

You'd think the two parties could agree on that. Dems like the nice union defense industry jobs. Republicans want a strong national defense. Different reasons but you end up with the same result.

[Daniel]

wars tend to help the economy.

.

Yea. Good thing we're in two wars right now. We'd be really fucked otherwise.

[Parkbandit]

Harry Reid is my new hero.

That's not a big surprise. I'm sure Pelosi ranks right up there with you as well.

Harry Reid is a prime example of what has become of the Democratic Party.

[Warriorbird]

Republicans are just 'spend and spend', crb. Only according to you their spending doesn't count because it is in the special okay to spend areas. Spending is spending.

[Parkbandit]

Republicans are just 'spend and spend', crb. Only according to you their spending doesn't count because it is in the special okay to spend areas. Spending is spending.

Both parties are just 'spend and spend'. Difference is, Republicans are SUPPOSED to fucking care about it. Democrats don't hide that they don't.

Fuck both parties.

[Warriorbird]

Damn... a post I almost agree with. I just tend to vote based on who's wasteful spending habits I like better lately.

[ClydeR]

“The greatest moral issue of our time isn’t abortion, it’s robbing our next generation of opportunity,” Coburn told reporters at a breakfast meeting Thursday at the National Press Club. “You’re going to save a child from being aborted so they can be born into a debtor’s prison?”

What a foolish thing to say. :(

[Gan]

What a foolish thing to say. :(

According to you perhaps. Thanks for your opinion though.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm pretty sure Clyde's post was written in stone by the finger of God, Gan. TAKESTH THOU CARE LEST THY CALUMNIES REACH YON EAR OF THE LORD GOD.

[Stanley Burrell]

TAKESTH THOU CARE LEST THY CALUMNIES REACH YON EAR OF THE LORD GOD.

Revelations?

[Latrinsorm]

The revelation to John of the Air, or Airjohn for short.

[Stanley Burrell]

Amen.

[Warriorbird]

Sneakers for the religious right.

[Stanley Burrell]

Sneakers for the religious right.

http://markjberry.blogs.com/way_out_west/Trainers.jpg

Google images has yet to disappoint.

[BigWorm]

http://markjberry.blogs.com/way_out_west/Trainers.jpg

Google images has yet to disappoint.

That looks like the Christ the Redeemer statue that over looks Rio. So you're at least two degrees separated from the real baby Jesus.

[Stanley Burrell]

That looks like the Christ the Redeemer statue that over looks Rio. So you're at least two degrees separated from the real baby Jesus.

I can't live my life as an n - 2 function.

http://www.theatrezone.org/productions/past/edinburgh/kilts.jpg

[crb]

Republicans are just 'spend and spend', crb. Only according to you their spending doesn't count because it is in the special okay to spend areas. Spending is spending.
I've said dozens of times that Bush has not been fiscally conservative enough. I guess there isn't enough room in your brain to store that or...?

[Ashliana]

It's not just Bush. The Republicans had control of both the executive and legislative branches for 6 years--every single one of them is also to blame for the irresponsible spending and irresponsible tax cuts which have plunged us further into the red.

[Warriorbird]

Heck with enough... at all would be better phrasing. The Republican controlled Congress tripled spending. Democrats on average double it in the same amount of time.

Both are ludicrous. One is worse.

Good economic growth type policies don't matter if you waste all of your cash.

[Clove]

Well thank God we've established that Wars are expensive.


WHEW!They are expensive! And the LONGEST WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY IS uberexpensive!

[Gan]

The revelation to John of the Air, or Airjohn for short.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/images/Untitled-1-7.jpg

Adding this one because its too funny not to include. THIS ONE IS FOR YOU STAN!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/digglz/AIR-JESUS.jpg

[ClydeR]

It's not just Bush. The Republicans had control of both the executive and legislative branches for 6 years--every single one of them is also to blame for the irresponsible spending and irresponsible tax cuts which have plunged us further into the red.

To be fair, as I always am, you are correct that the Republicans share some responsibility with the Democrats for our current fiscal situation. President Bush had good plans when he came into office, but then we were struck by the terrorism of 9/11 and, as part of our response, we were forced to take down a dangerous dictator in Iraq. For the sake of nostalgia, let's remember the bright promise of 2001, as explained by the President in one of his early radio addresses to the nation.


We will pay off $2 trillion of debt over the next decade. That will be the largest debt reduction of any country, ever. Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren.

And in addition to funding our priorities, and reducing debt by a record amount, we set up a contingency fund of nearly $1 trillion, and we still have money left over. The surplus money that remains will be used for a broad, fair tax relief. A surplus, after all, is an over-charge of American tax payers. And on your behalf, I am asking for a refund.

My tax plan reduces income tax rates across the board, giving the largest percentage reductions to working families who need the most help. My plan reduces the marriage penalty, and gets rid of the death tax. It will boost the economy, and help create new businesses, new jobs and new growth, at a time when we need all three.

More... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010303.html)

[Ashliana]

To be fair, as I always am, you are correct that the Republicans share some responsibility with the Democrats for our current fiscal situation. President Bush had good plans when he came into office, but then we were struck by the terrorism of 9/11 and, as part of our response, we were forced to take down a dangerous dictator in Iraq. For the sake of nostalgia, let's remember the bright promise of 2001, as explained by the President in one of his early radio addresses to the nation.

Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. We were not "forced" to do anything to Iraq. The world disagreed with us, and we went in, essentially alone. This is different than the whole, misguided "Iraq has WMDs" intelligence. The only link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is..

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IragAl-QaedaLink.gif

Our response to Afghanistan was justified. That's why we, and numerous other countries joined us. It was the right thing to do. After all that's happened, all that's been said--that you're sitting here, repeating the same nonsense connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is just absurd.

Your quoted speech just proves how full of shit the Republicans are and how meaningless their rhetoric is. "We'll give broad-based relief." No, they'll give relief to oil companies through tax breaks, which they don't spend on drilling in the land we've leased them already, and relief to the wealthiest of Americans. "They'll repay the national debt." No, they'll increase it more than any other presidency in our lifetimes. "We're for small government and minimal intrusion of government into your daily life." No, they increased government more than any president since FDR with The New Deal, and voted to amend the constitution to right religious-based discrimination against gays into a legal document of rights.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/images/Untitled-1-7.jpg

Adding this one because its too funny not to include. THIS ONE IS FOR YOU STAN!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/digglz/AIR-JESUS.jpg

You are seriously one of the best economic educators I know.

For example, it wasn't until I looked at this thread when I realized I could make tens of millions of dollars selling footwear with a religious twist. If that isn't a profitable niche market, I don't know what is.

[Clove]

Thanks alot PB. I hope your kids put you in a nursing home this year.

[Gan]

Thanks alot PB. I hope your kids put you in a nursing home this year.

LOL

[Gan]

Your quoted speech just proves how full of shit the Republicans are and how meaningless their rhetoric is. "We'll give broad-based relief." No, they'll give relief to oil companies through tax breaks, which they don't spend on drilling in the land we've leased them already, and relief to the wealthiest of Americans. "They'll repay the national debt." No, they'll increase it more than any other presidency in our lifetimes. "We're for small government and minimal intrusion of government into your daily life." No, they increased government more than any president since FDR with The New Deal, and voted to amend the constitution to right religious-based discrimination against gays into a legal document of rights.

Blanket statement FTL.

Here's where I offer up Backlash's old moniker for you to include as your new byline. "I'm so far left, I'm right".

People might take you more seriously if you didnt come off so fucking offensive.

[Ashliana]

And what exactly was a blanket statement? Bush, the head of the executive branch, advocated a religiously based amendment to the United States constitution. The senate, in regards to the amendment, in '06 voted on cloture, whether or not to consider it before the floor. 49 yea votes to 48 nay votes in 2006-- and now, as of 08, the democrat/republican split is 51 democrat, 49 republican.

Bush proposed his "Bush Tax Cuts" to congress, and the Republican-controlled Congress approved them.

The Republican-controlled Congress created and executed the tax breaks to the oil corporations.

Bush's administration created the largest department of federal government in history: DHS, and has increased the federal deficit dramatically, as Reagan did.

Where are the blanket statements, exactly? I'm sorry that you find them politically inconvenient, but then again--that's your way of dismissing what you don't like to actually respond to.

[Gan]

And what exactly was a blanket statement?

If you cant figure that out from your previous post - then I cant help you.

[Ashliana]

In other words, you're copping out of responding to the facts. I accept your forfeiture.

[Gan]

And what exactly was a blanket statement? Bush, the head of the executive branch, advocated a religiously based amendment to the United States constitution. The senate, in regards to the amendment, in '06 voted on cloture, whether or not to consider it before the floor. 49 yea votes to 48 nay votes in 2006-- and now, as of 08, the democrat/republican split is 51 democrat, 49 republican.
Thanks for the filler material...



Bush proposed his "Bush Tax Cuts" to congress, and the Republican-controlled Congress approved them.
Pre 9/11


The Republican-controlled Congress created and executed the tax breaks to the oil corporations.
Just Oil corp. specifically or were there other companies involved in this 'tax giveaway'?


Bush's administration created the largest department of federal government in history: DHS.
I'm sure there were no Democrats who voted in favor of this after 9/11...
Oh wait, what was the Deomcrat solution for post 9/11 security???



Where are the blanket statements, exactly? I'm sorry that you find them politically inconvenient, but then again--that's your way of dismissing what you don't like to actually respond to.
See previous post. The only thing I dismiss is your tenacious ability to be a mind numbing Bush hater. The really funny thing is you're coming to the party a little late. But thanks for coming back and entertaining us!

[Gan]

In other words, you're copping out of responding to the facts. I accept your forfeiture.

Premature, like so many other things in your life...


:lol:

[Ashliana]

Edit: argument deleted. It's meaningless debating with someone whom, at any sight of criticism or negativity towards a hugely and justifiably unpopular administration and party, dismisses it out of hand. I'm done. Enjoy thinking whatever the hell it is you think, and enjoy a repeat of the '06 election cycle.

[Parkbandit]

Thanks alot PB. I hope your kids put you in a nursing home this year.

w00t!!

[Stanley Burrell]

okayy

[Parkbandit]

Edit: argument deleted. It's meaningless debating with someone whom, at any sight of criticism or negativity towards a hugely and justifiably unpopular administration and party, dismisses it out of hand. I'm done. Enjoy thinking whatever the hell it is you think, and enjoy a repeat of the '06 election cycle.

Does this mean you are leaving again.. for like 2 days?

:(

[Latrinsorm]

No, they increased government more than any president since FDR with The New DealYou're not one of those "FDR sucks, the New Deal prolonged the Depression!!!" people, are you?
It's meaningless debating with someone whom, at any sight of criticism or negativity towards a hugely and justifiably unpopular administration and party, dismisses it out of hand.He dismisses it, not him dismisses it. :)

[Ashliana]

Does this mean you are leaving again.. for like 2 days?

:(

O NO U DINNT! *snap snap snap*

:cough, cough: ..Anyway. No, but arguing with him in particular is just pointless. Apparently my "blanket statements" (referring to specific actions taken by the Republican controlled congress '06 and previous) as well as anything negative or critical of the Bush administration Gan can't respond to. I'm not going to debate myself blue in the face for no reason. I'll debate you on the other hand. =D

[Ashliana]

You're not one of those "FDR sucks, the New Deal prolonged the Depression!!!" people, are you?He dismisses it, not him dismisses it. :)

I think FDR did the right thing. But the Republicans claim to value small government; yet they've done precisely the opposite and voted for the most vast increase in the size of government since FDR.

As for the grammatical point, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, as I didn't say "him dismisses it." o_O

[Gan]

Edit: argument deleted. It's meaningless debating with someone whom, at any sight of criticism or negativity towards a hugely and justifiably unpopular administration and party, dismisses it out of hand. I'm done. Enjoy thinking whatever the hell it is you think, and enjoy a repeat of the '06 election cycle.

I accept your forfeiture.

[Ashliana]

I accept your forfeiture.

Know that picture of the little girl screaming at the animal? That's basically what it's like debating with you.

http://innocentenglish.com/cute-animals/funny-animal-pics/girl-makes-face-cow-img125.jpg

You just sit there and brush off anything that people say, because you can't be bothered to actually address any points that contradict your initial assertions. You forfeited twice, and I accepted it--we've been over this, Gan. :(

[Gan]

Know that picture of the little girl screaming at the animal? That's basically what it's like debating with you.

http://innocentenglish.com/cute-animals/funny-animal-pics/girl-makes-face-cow-img125.jpg

You just sit there and brush off anything that people say, because you can't be bothered to actually address any points that contradict your initial assertions. You forfeited twice, and I accepted it--we've been over this, Gan. :(

LOL - well, you've got the screaming little girl part down, thats for sure.

Actually we've already been over this topic in the past. I choose not to have to dredge out all that again. Feel free to do a search if you want indepth discussion - because you surely arent worth attempting to shout down (read: arguing incessantly over shifting points and feigned hyperbole). For now I'll just spend time pointing out the obvoiusness of your participation. But sure, if it makes your leg tingle to think I yielded to you then enjoy the fantasy. ;)

See the picture below - its what its like watching you post here, say you're leaving, then come back and post more.


http://sithoughts.mu.nu/archives/trainwreck.jpg

[Ashliana]

The course of discussion changes over time, that's true of everyone. But "shifting points?" Right. That's the same thing Nieninque tried to argue, and, as she discovered, was based solely on her inability to stop overreaching in meaning of my statements.

My positions do not magically shift unless someone manages to convince me of something--which, coming from you, rarely happens, as you essentially don't even try to argue. You just go "nuh uh! That's hyperbole! I don't have to respond to that! Nuh uh! Blanket statements, despite being narrow references to actual events~! 9/11's a blanket statement!"

I said I was done--done arguing with you over whether or not the Republicans are crashing and burning due to hypocritically stated goals. You can think whatever you want--the voters will prove you wrong come the election, and you can be bleating the same nonsense over and over again till your throat bleeds.

As for my leaving the forum--putting Tisket's deception aside, the political forum's become much too dependent on me! Things aren't interesting when I'm not around. :( Pity I'm going on vacation tomorrow. I'll be back Tuesday. Let's see if you can "keep it up" until I get back.

[Gan]

The course of discussion changes over time, that's true of everyone. But "shifting points?" Right. That's the same thing Nieninque tried to argue, and, as she discovered, was based solely on her inability to stop overreaching in meaning of my statements.

My positions do not magically shift unless someone manages to convince me of something--which, coming from you, rarely happens, as you essentially don't even try to argue. You just go "nuh uh! That's hyperbole! I don't have to respond to that! Nuh uh! Blanket statements, despite being narrow references to actual events~! 9/11's a blanket statement!"

I said I was done--done arguing with you over whether or not the Republicans are crashing and burning due to hypocritically stated goals. You can think whatever you want--the voters will prove you wrong come the election, and you can be bleating the same nonsense over and over again till your throat bleeds.

As for my leaving the forum--putting Tisket's deception aside, the political forum's become much too dependent on me! Things aren't interesting when I'm not around. :( Pity I'm going on vacation tomorrow. I'll be back Tuesday. Let's see if you can "keep it up" until I get back.

Is your leg still tingling?

While you're at it, can you go ahead and give us a prediction for this week's lottery numbers?

[Clove]

Tisket never deceived you, welsher.