Republican Leaders Draw A Line In The Sand
Both Boehner and McConnell have declined invitations to a state dinner by President Obama to honor the Chinese leader Hu. Obama is like a giddy schoolgirl getting ready for a date with the high school quarterback as he bends over to make the Hu feel special. Now Obama must feel smitten, since the White House had advised Congressional leaders that they were expected to attend the state dinner for Hu.
Nancy Pelosi, D. CA, has been a critic of China’s human rights record, but is anxious to be in the spotlight with a world leader and our gift from G-d. She will surely take the opportunity to quiz the Chinese dictator on China’s human rights’ violations with her inane sense of intellect and wit or perhaps Obama has wisely told her to keep her pie hole shut.
Shakespeare understood the addiction of the Progressive Socialists, and described the problem over 400 years ago.
Henry IV, Shakespeare:
I can get no remedy from this consumption of the purse; borrowing only lingers and lingers it out, but the disease is incurable.
This is only the third state dinner of Obama’s Administration and with his attention to extravagance and to show the dictator how we Americans can waste public funds, the dinner will probably be epic for a country that is mired in a recession and near bankruptcy. Every attempt will be made to show the man who wants, (has already decided) to dump the dollar as the international currency standard, that he is absolutely correct in his assessment of America’s financial leadership and wisdom, especially with the current administration.
For Boehner and McConnell to decline their invitation may seem like a lack of manners and etiquette to many; however, Harry Reid, who referred to the dictator as a dictator, is predisposed in Nevada and will meet with the Chinese dictator with Boehner and McConnell on Thursday as well.
Boehner, when quizzed about missing the state dinner, replied with diplomatic aplomb:
“Without accepting most of that question, the president of China is coming to the Hill on Thursday. We’re going to meet with him in a bipartisan fashion and I look forward to seeing him in the future.”
A rare show of diplomacy is appreciated in Washington these days; however, the question is remains in the shadows, like an assassin with a knife, how much of a friend is this country we call China. Can we trust them? or is their intention to destroy us economically and militarily. With a leader like President Obama, they know they can seize the advantage and manipulate his obeisance and hero worship of Communist leaders and dictators as if he were a gullible child.
(View all pictures of Chinese execution: Warning Graphic)
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
I just came in and popped on the TV.
First thing I see is a line of men and women kneeling on the ground with an armed Chinese soldier behind each one.
Suddenly the puff of smoke and the executed all fall over one way and another.
Gee, in the USA every firing squad hands out rifles with one empty among them.
Every man on the line can imagine his was that one.
Not in China.
There is a huge move earth-wide opposed to individual conscience.
Think of the seared conscience of every Chinese soldier, knowing he absolutely killed a person during executions like the ones you show.
In the Muslim world Christians are systematically being wiped out of existence.
Yes, those who can, get out.
But many are simply being murdered.
And when a few European countries and the Pope expressed outrage and dismay here’s the reaction: butt out!
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/arab-leaders-reject-western-interference-minority-affairs
So Nan would you be in favor of allowing those persecuted Christians to move here to the USA?
As long as Obama is able to read what he is told, we still have to depend on who loaded the teleprompter.
I was wondering if this is the good cop, bad cop ploy between the two branches. Schumer has been making hostile remarks all week and Reid has also been pretty grumpy about our loan officers today. But, if the WH expected them to show up, and then they get snubbed, what might that look like to Hu?
I just read an article about Boehner and Obama. I seems as though Boehner isn’t too much concerned with him. He also turned down a ride on AF1 to attend the memoriapalooza last week, other dinners as well. Boehner said he lives in the real world and hasn’t much in common with Obama but may play a round of golf with him in the future. Fresh after dealing with a couple years of Obama the manchild, having to contend with the One’s new role as the press pumped up “compromiser” isn’t a duty he may be real optomistic about.
@John ryan: would you?
Darn right I would.
Rather that than have them wiped out in places like Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq and where-ever else.
Why not?
I am also for allowing refugees from the drug-violent Mexican border area come here to seek asylum.
(That is, if their own country cannot assist them in moving away from the violence.)
Those are exactly the people who America puts out the welcome mat for.
@Nan G: why would anyone have to ask such a question? Doesn’t bode well for us, does it?
It wasn’t Obama who got us in hawk to China. We took on two decade-long overseas wars while simultaneously cutting taxes for a decade. It’s possible that there might be some sort of relationship.
@Greg:
No it wasn’t ONLY Obama that got us into, I think you meant “hock” to China, that started a looonnnggg time ago, even longer than the 8 years prior to Obama, remembering the wheeling and dealing between Clinton and the Chinese. He actually assisted them in job creation.
But, Obama certainly gets plenty of credit for a healthy chunk of debt we are in “hock” to China for.
Those are exactly the people who America puts out the welcome mat for.
Nan G,
Exactly so. Harboring those fleeing religious or political persecution has been the very heart of American immigration policy since its very beginning, although we often fall short of our lofty goals, (and rhetoric). Nevertheless, America was founded for the most part by people fleeing tyranny and religious persecution, which is exactly why some of us are appalled at the way the Obama administration continues to curry favor with some of the most despotic and tyrannical regimes on the planet.
The official state visit of the President of the People’s Republic of China, Hu Jintau, supplies another sad example of financial considerations trumping human rights. Lost amidst the gala of steak and apple pie was the courage to stand up for basic human rights as thousands of political prisoners languish in prison, and some are even executed. Indeed children and adults are forced to work long hours under grueling conditions in factories and fields for subsistence wages, even as families are only allowed the state quota of one child per customer. Bibles are banned and Christians (as well as other faiths) are persecuted. All things considered, China has a worse human rights record than Russia, which is saying something. But China holds much of our debt, and the borrower is ever beholden to the creditor. In one sense, the very steak and apple pie Hu Jintau dined on was bought with money borrowed from China!
Honey, when your guy is printing money so fast as Obama has been doing, and gaining an extra TRILLION DOLLARS of dept in just 7 months you can’t really ”Blame Bush,” anymore.
Here’s what a Trillion Dollars looks like.
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
In less than ten years we will be paying more to ”service the debt” (pay just the interest) than we will be committing to our entire military!
Remember the scariest jobs chart?
http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/07/employment-recessions-june-2010.html
Last entry on this version was in June 2010.
But look where we were when the country knew Obama would win……
Week number 2 on the red line of the chart.
Obama took office during week number 13 of that chart’s red line.
So many business-friendly things he could have promised, then done, but did not.
Plummet.
So, here we are, today, six months after the last entry on the chart we are still near the -5.0 line.
Pathetic, to blame Bush for all of that.
@Greg: who took on 2 decade-long wars? I will say though, I couldn’t be proud of my President. sarc/
A Chinese dissident has asked Obama which of his two daughters he would choose to put to death if America were living under Chinese law.
Chai Ling was a survivor of China’s 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
It is a fair question.
They are both such lovely girls.
But post-birth ”abortions” are done all the time in China.
So McConnell and Boehner won’t be coming to dinner, but insisted on extending tax cuts which will ensure the need to borrow hundreds of billions of additional dollars from said dictator.
Take a look at Skookum’s photos of the executions.
It is nauseating that conservatives find virtue in avoiding the unpleasant necessity of paying for their own government, which necessitates turning to such an odious banker.
They didn’t go to dinner. Whoop de do. Tough guys. Real patriots.
Real patriots pay their own bills. They pay their own way in the world. They make the sacrifices necessary to remain not only free but independent of odious dictatorships. They even pay taxes, when necessary. That’s what Biden meant, when he said it was patriotic to pay taxes. You pay for your own government, so that you don’t have to borrow money from truly evil foreign governments.
@nan: Why don’t you explain to us precisely what additional money Obama spent (over what Bush and the GOP spent and would have spent) to generate all that extra debt? Obama spent a pittance more (about $260 billion). In the form of aid to state and local governments, tax cuts, and extension of unemployment benefits, which were largely supported by the GOP. A trifling for infrastructure and the like. The debt didn’t go up that much because of Obama spending. It went up because the economy went into the tank and tax receipts plunged. The economy went into the tank because of an under-regulated Wall Street, bad decisions by Greenspan, and irresponsible tax cuts under Bush (unfortunately, just extended under Obama).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Missy: I think you meant “hock” to China…
Yep, “hock” is the word. The typo is also Bush’s fault.
Actually, I don’t blame it all on Bush. As you correctly observe, the stage was set earlier. And Obama just gave in to a 2-year extension of the same tax cuts. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
Skookum, a few thoughts —
1) You make much of Chinese executions. Are you, like the Catholic Church, anti-death penalty? Or are you just beefing about who the Chinese execute, and content that we, in contrast, execute “the right people”?
2) Boehner will not attend the state dinner for Hu, but will meet with the same guy on Capitol Hill. If this, in your eyes, counts as a “resolute stand” against a Communist dictator, then we are all in a heap big trouble, Kemosabe!
3) You act as if you did not notice that, from 2001 through 2009, when George W. Bush was in office, we had become horribly indebted to the Chi-Coms. During that time frame, GOPer cons cut tax revenues and increased spending, then decided to borrow from the Communists to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, instead of raising taxes — as the US had done during prior wars. Were you asleep all that time? Or drugged? What is the explanation for your lack of awareness and your lack of outrage? Please explain!
Nan G. —
I LOVE that you are all exercised NOW about all the debt that we have run up during the last two years, when the economy has been in recession (from December 2007 through June 2009) and tax revenues dropped and spending increased. But I ask: what took you so long to get jazzed up about deficit spending?
Where were you, Nan, in 2002, when a Clinton surplus was turned into a Bush deficit? Where were you during the 2002 through 2007 period, when the economy was expanding but GOPer cons ran up deficit after deficit after deficit, cutting tax revenues while increasing spending? How much screaming were you doing then?
You know it is easy to criticize when money is being spent to put out fires . . . but what were you saying when we were in better fiscal condition, and the GOPer cons kept pushing through deficit after deficit after deficit? Were you blogging about the end of America? Or did you say nothing, as I suspect?
I know you cons NEVER want to answer those questions. I have even seen cons blame the Bush era deficits on THE MINORITY DEMOCRATS! Really?! Then by the same warped calculus, the Dem deficits can be laid at the feet of the minority GOPers!
No, cons . . . methinks this is all a charade. You really care nothing about deficits and debt; this is just a game. You will not criticize the Boehner led GOPer cons for proposing deficit spending because you accept GOPer deficits . . . you just don’t like Dem deficits. You don’t really mind borrowing money from the Chinese Communists . . . you just oppose Dems doing the same thing. There is no principled dissent against ANYTHING, only a GOP-centric, party based reflexive opposition to anything the Dems do. And that is your downfall, cons: you lack any governing principles. And Barry Goldwater spins in his grave at 1,776 revolutions per minute, lamenting that his conservative movement has been given over to political pimps, hustlers, hucksters, jack-leg preachers and charlatans. You stand for nothing and you fall for anything . . . and we are beginning to see you cons for who you really are . . . .
Larry, usually I can follow your logic, but I think you have wires crossed on this issue. You did read that Harry Reid is missing the dinner as well. Shall we apply your logic to his absence as well. He used the same excuse as McConnell of being too busy in his home state, Whooopee is this the mark of a tough guy, at least he had the integrity to brand Hu as a dictator.
I agree that the photos are despicable, but having a state dinner to celebrate the chief representative of such atrocities is hardly an issue to be proud of and continuing to increase the nation’s debt in light of borrowing from such sources until servicing the debt will put us at the mercy of the Communist banker is not a pretty picture either, but at least the reader has a warning of the graphic nature of the execution photos. I don’t think we are receiving any warning of the graphic nature of the consequences of our debt with China.
@Missy:
You cons on FA frequently to refer to Obama as a “manchild”.
Dictionary.com defines “manchild” as “[man-chahyld] noun, plural men-chil·dren.
a male child; boy; son.”
What do you mean by using this word? Are you calling the president a “boy”? Please explain.
Always a racist implication for you, eh Billy Bob? Don’t you ever get tired of manufacturing the racist boogie man you see behind every corner in life?
@Skook: I didn’t understand the whole story. I (yet again) made the mistake of shooting off my mouth without carefully reading what was actually going on. I just glanced over your post and somehow got the impression that the absences at the state dinner was some sort of overt political statement — an intended direct slap in the face of the Chinese leader. It was the “draw a line in the sand” headline. As I now understand it, this was your headline and not a characterization by McConnell, Boehner, or their staffs. And McConnell, Boehner (and Reid) are going to meet with him, later on.
Yes, by the way. I do cast similar aspersions in the direction of Reid as I do toward McConnell and Boehner. Reid gets a lesser set of aspersions than the latter, because Reid, at least, was in favor of ending part of the Bush tax cuts. I agree with the likes of Greenspan and David Stockman that it’s irresponsible to extend ANY of the tax cuts. If we current day Americans have to bear some additional suffering to minimize our borrowing from creditors like China, then we should stand up tall, like true patriots, and take on our fair share of the load.
I’m glad that we both agree that borrowing money from China is a bad thing. We probably disagree some, on how to minimize and hopefully avoid such borrowing in the future.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
A few Replies:
I think Nancy Pelosi and I agree on this one issue, executing people for being politically incorrect is horrible. I hate the idea of capital punishment and I hate the idea of prisons; unfortunately, they are necessary. The idea of releasing people from prisons because of DNA evidence has been appalling for me. The thought of people being executed for crimes they didn’t commit and the truth never being brought to the surface because of the limitations of our DNA analysis, is awful to contemplate. No, I don’t think we only imprison and execute the right people, but there are some people that cannot be allowed among the general population. A cage is a horrible lace for an animal or a human; I have very personal reasons for those feelings; yet, I know we have no other known option for dealing with those who harm others and those who steal. Not everyone can be elected to congress, even some thieves have a measure of honor and integrity.
Trust me on this issue, I know what a resolute stand is; I can’t be sure of Boehner’s reasons, nor can I be sure of Reid’s or McConnell’s, but I believe that business and socializing under the trappings of pomp and circumstances are two different things.
I am anti-drug and consider aspirin to be a strong drug, a drug that I use occasionally when I am thrown against a wall or to the ground by a 1200 pounder in a move so fast you can’t see it happen, so I doubt that would qualify as being drugged. Tonto. I have only been on the internet for a little of over a year, so I would have had few opportunities to register my disgust over the situation.
A part of the TEA party’s platform that I agree with is that we are taxed enough all ready and that way too much of our tax money is wasted on pork and other dubious schemes of government. So even though I am a newbie to the computer and the internet, I am making my feelings known. I learn more everyday about how these machines and the internet works, so I will hopefully become more proficient in mechanical skills and writing as time goes by.
(I thought it was funny replying to Kemosabe with Tonto, Jay Silver Heels, the man who played Tonto raced Standardbreds and was once a customer of mine.)
I hope you find common ground with my answers, they are my feelings and were expressed in good faith, if you want to probe for weaknesses, you can probably find the weak spots, but I think it would be more practical to find common ground and work towards a consensus, rather than taking issue strictly for the sake of confrontation. This is a Conservative blog and heaving manure and throwing insults actually accomplishes nothing, but finding common ground and working for a purpose or towards a goal can accomplish things for both of us or all of us.
@B-Rob:
I did a cursory search.
Couldn’t find any except from you.
Can you prove your allegation?
Thanks in advance.
Where were people when the debt was being accumulated before 2009?
Well, there is a concept in chemistry called “activation energy.” A reaction can be energetically favorable, but still require a big enough push to actually get it started. People had known for years there was a debt problem brewing, but did not want to make a lot of noise about it. There is a natural apathy in many people about political matters. That’s how I was- I knew it could not go on like it was, but did not actually get out and protest until 2009.
The activation energy that precipitated the protests against government spending can be seen depicted in this chart from March 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
A sudden tripling of the deficit that was, shall we say, unprecedented, and extended into the future as far as the eye could see. Before that, things were getting worse much more gradually, in a “boil the frog” sort of manner.
You can also see from the chart that the Bush-era deficits were not dramatically different from previous ones, and had actually been getting steadly smaller for several years until 2008. Democrats took both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, and were sworn in January 2007. The new Congress worked on the budget in 2007, and the 2008 fiscal year was when that first Democrat-Congressional-majority approved budget took effect.
The unprincipled, arrogant, ruthless way that the Democrats and the media behaved in the ’08 election and afterwards pushed things along as well. In particular, the media had been in the tank for Democrats for quite some time, but 2008 was the year that the mask of impartiality and professionalism finally dropped off altogether.
The, again, unprecedented radical social engineering stuff got started as soon as the class of ’08 was sworn in — Cap and Trade, Healthcare takeowver, Auto Takeover, etc. etc.
Stating, as many ‘Progressives’ have, that the only thing unprecdented in 2009 was that we had a President with a skin of a particular shade, is a disgusting and manipulative lie. Obama is simply the most visible representative of the left wing of the Democratic Party; they are numerous, and almost all of them are old and white. I don’t care what Obama looks like, B-Rob. Do you?
Guest list:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/01/obama-hu-state-dinner-guest-list.html
A lot of “Honorable” folks in that list.
Like:
The Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, Secretary of State
The Honorable William J. Clinton, former President of the United States
The Honorable James E. Clyburn, Representative from South Carolina
The Honorable Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago, Chicago, IL
The Honorable Thomas Donilon, [Fannie Mae VP] incoming National Security Advisor
The Honorable Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
The Honorable Valerie Jarrett
The Honorable John F. Kerry
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
The Honorable David Plouffe
The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius
—-
“Honorable”
“You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” –Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
—-
I noticed that Gov. Christie showed up with this A-list of commies and uber-rich libs. WTF.
From November 2010: a newly-elected Republican congressman gives his victory speech to a room full of crazed Tea Partiers:
His name is Allen West.
The word for Barack Hussein Obama is MULATO:
n., pl., -tos, or -toes.
1. A person having one white and one Black parent.
2. A person of mixed white and Black ancestry.
Well, AdrianS, you misspelled it, and what the hell is your point anyway?
I think the word for you is ‘Moby.’
Adrian, what’s the word for 1/8 black, 1/2 white, and 3/8 Arab?
Again delusional Larry trots out the disproven claim that cutting taxes causes deficits. Poor Larry, so unable to face reality. Hey Larry, feel free to cut a larger check to the govt. if it gets you so excited you hypocrite. Ah yes, WE need to pay for the spending Dems like Larry pushed despite a majority of the nation telling them not to. Patriotism Larry? You haven’t a clue what that is.
Taqi, Christie IS NOT a Conservative. That is why he arrived with them. His overall views are much closer to theirs than ours.
Braindead rob strikes again. The Chinese MURDERING innocent people is somehow the same as executing convicted murderers who received a fair trial. He then goes on to imply Christians who support the death penalty are hypocrites. How does so much stupidity fit in his skull? Obviously it doesn’t and that is why he has to continually dump it here– to keep his head from exploding.
Hard Right
I know. I’m slowly coming around to this realization, especially after his appointment to the court of a Hamas-linked Muslim judge recently.
Even the Tea Partiers in this nation are being duped. When 2012 rolls around, my guess is that more than 50% will be smooth-talking Gadsden Flag-wavers who, when elected, will show their true colors.
I find it ironic that the flag chosen by the supposed God-fearing conservatives depicts a serpent. Pretty brazen, from Satan’s point of view. It’s not just the Left in this nation which is ripe for deception.
Scott Brown comes to mind. One of “us”. As far to the left as John McCain in his voting, so far. Perhaps further. This is an age of great deception.
@Hard Right (#28). In a very recent F/A debate over the relationship of tax cuts and deficits, I provided links to the statements of 10 conservative economists who agreed unanimously that tax cuts have never paid for themselves (i.e. that they always increase the deficit) and MataHarley, in attempted rebuttal, cited the largest study ever done on each and every tax cut bill or tax increase bill over the past 40 years (or more), and, in every case of the study she cited, the tax cuts resulted in a net loss of revenue (i.e. they increased the deficit) and the tax increase resulted in a net increase in revenue (i.e. they reduced the deficit).
Not a single Republican congressional leader defended extending the tax cuts on the basis that so doing would decrease the deficit. Not a single one rebutted the CBO estimate that they would increase the debt by $2.1 trillion. Rather, the GOP leaders instead simply made statements to the effect that “it would be disastrous to increase taxes in the middle of a weak recovery” or whatever.
In other words, the GOP defended extending the tax cuts on the basis of pure Keynesian stimulatory economics. Deficits and debt be damned.
The most discredited economic theory since “The Communist Manifesto” is that you raise revenues/cut deficits by cutting taxes — it is unequivocally obvious and universally accepted that cutting taxes in the marginal tax range of 50% or below reduces tax revenue and therefore increases deficits and therefore requires increased borrowing from authoritarian China.
If anyone wants to start this argument all over again, let’s do so now.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Sherman (#22). You are trying to deflect blame away from Bush and onto Democrats, regarding the massive increase in the debt ratio, trying to claim that the Dems have been in control of the budget since 2006. In point of fact, the rate of increase of government spending did not accelerate upward between 2006 and 2009, while the deficit massively exploded during this time. The President is Constitutionally charged with preparing the budget. Congress approves it and the Dem Congress of 2007 (when they were sworn in) to 2009 (when Obama was sworn in) simply approved the Bush-submitted budget, with the usual amount of (completely bipartisan) pork slathered on — the pork being important symbolically but being a mere trifle.
The reason the deficit exploded was because of declining tax receipts, which were owing to the full phase-in of the Bush tax cuts, combined, in the last year, with the recession.
Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts nearly doubled the debt ratio, following 35 years of steady declines under higher tax administrations, both GOP and Dem. Clinton’s tax hikes again reduced the debt ratio. Bush’s tax cuts pushed them back up. The recession caused another hike, and “the stimulus” directly accounted for another couple percent or so. But it must be noted that Obama’s $760 billion “stimulus” was only $260 billion more than the $500 billion stimulus which was the GOP alternative. So the only direct blame which Obama uniquely deserves is $260 billion, which is only a percent or so.
It’s hypocritical to say that it’s wrong to attend a state dinner for the nation’s banker, on some sort of moral principle, while being directly responsible for policies which have forced the US to borrow from such an odious lender of last resort.
From the view of a strictly business/capitalist perspective, it’s hardly a bad expenditure of of the nation’s money to take a client out to dinner, when you are trying to get him to buy more of your goods and services, correct his currency manipulation, and lend you the money you need, in order to stay in business. Oh yeah, and then there’s this thing about North Korean nukes. We need the Chinese for help with that, as well.
The USA has a proud history of wining and dining and supporting dictators and human rights violators, in the pursuit of our own self-interest, e.g.
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/shared-blogs/austin/opinions/upload/2008/05/Oil%20Jawboning.jpg
There are a number of different photos of Bush handholding and kissing various and sundry Saudis, easily retrievable on the web. Arguably, though, good for business.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@B-Rob:
First, I’m not a racist, never have been, never will be, so get that out of your ignorant head. Illinoisans have been referring to Obama as a “manchild” since his senate run. He was a lazy state senator and had to be propped up by the senate president who created a record for him using the years long work of his colleagues. He is where he is because of a blue state and Chicago, not because he had a record of achievement.
So, so impatient, such a rush to prove something that isn’t there, who da thunk the definition for manchild would have evolved since…..1350–1400; ME? Evidently, not you.
Heh, the Urban Dictionary appropriately defines why so many use “manchild” when referring to him, and btw, I noted the definition fits you as well:
Who can argue with that, LOL! All this time we assumed it simply meant, immature, lazy, childish.
Hope you don’t get too “wee weed” up over the definition.
Openid, Congress during the time frame when Bush first took office to 2002 was dominated by Democrats. From 2002 to 2006, it was Dominated by Republicans. From 2006 to 20010 it was Dominated by Democrats.
Open you might want to re-read the Consitution. The Executive branch is not resposible of Budget concerns, the Congress is. All the President can do is sign or pocket veto/veto a budget plan and even if he vetos the Congress can bypass that Veto.
And if Tax receipts were in such a decline then why does the offical Government tax collection datas show that there was an increase in Tax Revenue from 2002 to 2007 for the Federal Government? And if Tax Receipts have declined, then why are politicans shoving forth plans to increase spending? It’s common sense in a household that has a declined income or no income not to jack up spending. It’s what’s called, “building up to failure.” Or simply making the household Insolvent, which is in the case of a Government going insolvent can lead to very terrible things for the citizens.
And that little fun of Economits? From my own Micro-Econ instructor back in college: “Funny little thing about working Economists. Get 3 in a room, and you’ll never get a solution.”
Larry, you have deliberately ignored economists who disagreed with your bogus beliefs. I know because I posted the links you ignored. I’m also not a fan of appeals to authority. So your claims that because they feel the way you do means little to me. As for economists themselves, they have a record of being wrong so often as to be almost useless.
There’s also the little problem where when confronted with graphs that showed increased revenue, you dismissed said revenue as an increase in “raw tax collection” but offered NO PROOF depite multiple requests for you to do so.
Both Mata and myself have pointed out how flawed your debt ratio measurement is, yet you act as if it’s un-impeachable. Really, you saying the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true.
Your claims are full of holes and unsupported by facts which is typical of liberal beliefs because they are rooted in ego and not reality.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
What a farce.
Conservatives are more than willing to “Pay for our government.” The trouble is that “our government” lies buried under layers of unconstitutional socialism put there by liberals like you who won’t pay for their own misplaced class guilt.
“Our government” is very strictly defined by the Constitution, no social security, no food stamps, no unemployment, no foreign aid, no socialist healthcare, no prohibition. And we are more than willing to support it.
Liberals lead the way alright. Let us know how much of the liberal’s vaunted “death tax” has ever been paid on any of the Kennedy fortune.
Go back to hiding under the bridge, you’ll get no more sustenance here.
Missy, Mr Irons, Just Al, and Hard Right, you guys know how to get the morning started Right.
@MataHarley:
Mata, you wrote:
Quite weak and defensive, Mata. I showed you the definition of “manchild”, an odd word that cons here use in referring to our president. The definition includes the words “boy” and “son”. Don’t know about you, but where I come from, unless you are his father, you don’t go around referring to a Black man in his 40s as “boy” or “son”; it’s demeaning and it DOES have a racist connotation . . . not one that I made up, but one steeped in 150 years of post-slavery and Jim Crow history.
Which, Mata, is why I asked why you cons are using that word. Y’all were the ones using it, so I asked what was your intention.
I am open to the possibility that the users here might not understand the belittling racial connotation that would arise from referring to a Black man in his 40s, a Harvard educated constitutional lawyer and professor, with a word that means “boy” or “son”. (I am reminded of W.E.B. DuBois’s short story “And/or”, by the way.) But now that you KNOW that there is a racial connotation to using the word “manchild” when referring to an adult Black male, I wonder if you folks will CONTINUE to use it anyway.
I would hope that you would not; but I will not be surprised if you do. It’s just how y’all roll . . . .
B-Rob….nothing is racist about this term (manchild) and if you keep on with this line of comments and racebaiting you will forever be banished from this site. First and last warning.
Really now…..
But wait…there’s more…
And on and on and on and on….The hypocrisy meter just pegged out and burst into flames.
Exit Questions:
What color is “[your] boy” Sherman?
What color is bbartlog?
What color am I?
@Taqiyyotomist:
Have we been had or what?
Obama wants us to eat sawdust and fiber sandwiches.
He wants us to limit our intake of fats and sugars.
Anybody else seen the menu for that China State Dinner?
Here it is:
D’Anjou and Pear salad (sugars)
Farmstead Goats cheese (fats)
Fennel,
Black Walnuts (fats)
and White Balsamic
Poached Maine Lobster
Orange-Glazed Carrots (sugars)
Black Trumpet Mushrooms
Served with Dumol Chardonnay ‘Russian River’ 2008 (sugars)
Lemon sorbet (sugars)
Dry Aged Rib Eye (bad fats)
Buttermilk Crisp Onions (fats)
Double-Stuffed Potatoes and Creamed Spinach (fats)
Served with Quilceda Creek Cabernet ‘Columbia Valley’ 2006 (sugars)
Old Fashioned Apple Pie (sugars and fats)
Vanilla ice cream (sugars and fats)
Served with Poets Leap Riesling ‘Botrytis’ 2006 (sugars)
List found here among other places:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348896/State-dinner-Obamas-All-American-White-House-banquet-welcome-Chinas-rulers.html#ixzz1Bb8JGj6t
Next state dinner, at this rate, Michelle will need a fancy-dress tarp!
@Open
I think you also missed the last election, where most of the republicans and Dims that helped to spend us into this mess were voted out of office. Unless of course the lived in states where more dead people vote than living.
@Hard Right:
PMSL…..
Missy —
Merriam-Webster, Random House and the American Heritage dictionaries define “manchild” as “a male child: boy: son.” For you to try to use the urbandictionary.com definition, instead of a REAL dictionary, to show your non-racist bona fides proves the weakness of your argument.
See my post to Mata, above. In short, back in the Jim Crow days in the God-foresaken South, it was perfectly fine for White people to refer to a Black man in his 40s as “boy” or “son”. You could even do that if the 40 year old Black man graduated at the top of class at Harvard Law School. It was acceptable to treat him as a “child,” even beat him with a belt if you chose to, because he had no legal or cultural rights to demand the respect due a “man.” Read Vernon Jordan’s book “Vernon can read!” and you get a taste of what a college educated Black man was expected to accept without complaint.
Given all that, for you and other cons to refer to the President of the United States by that term, showed some combination of ignorance or racist bile that I was having a hard time teasing out. But then I show you the definition and you double down by using it AGAIN, and standing by that usage, shows me something else.
Missy, I don’t know you at all. Don’t know your education level, etc. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know the racial connotation of calling a grown Black man a “manchild.” You were put on notice that it is offensive. I did not even use the word “racist” to describe your usage; Mata used that word, not me. But you not only used the word, you then tried to justify it, and then used it again! At some point, you lose the benefit of the doubt; you are no longer ignorant of the racial connotation of the word “manchild” when ascribed to a grown Black male. If you or any con on this board uses it again, we can only conclude that you INTEND to invoke the racist spectre of Jim Crow, when you could call a college educated Black man a “boy” or treat him like a child, and get away with it.
I am not calling you a “racist”, exactly. But if I am in my back yard and see a black colored quadruped, about two feet long with a white stripe down its back, and it gives off a foul stench, I am going to conclude that it is a skunk, and not just a cat that needs a bath, and I will act accordingly.
Skook, I’ve been fighting the head cold from hell for two weeks now so I’m a little crankier than usual.
@Nan G:
When you exercise a lot you can eat whatever you want. Don’t worry about Michelle; she is still as fit as when she went in and she’s been doing this for two years. She’ll still be wearing Vera Wang this fall . . . .
@Aye:
Weaker than weak. I refer to Sherman as “my boy Sherman” because of . . . Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman.
I do not know the race of any of you cons, so there CAN BE NO RACIAL CONNOTATION in referring to you as “boy”, now can there?
But we certainly know Obama’s race, don’t we? And we know the racial connotation of calling a grown college educated Black man a “boy”, don’t we?
As I said above — I ascribed it to ignorance that cons called Obama a “manchild” and did not know the racial connotation. I gave you the benefit if the doubt. But now that you KNOW why it is offensive, you have no more excuses for using it.
Curt —
You may argue that there is nothing racial about calling a college educated Black man a “manchild”, but that does not make it so. I just told you all why it is offensive, so now you all know.
Moreover, you can ban me if you like; it’s your site and your right and your choice. But whenever you cons whine about being “falsely” accused of being racists, remember this colloquy, and remember the “race war” thread and the TSA being a “black race dominated security force” thread from last month.
You cons have serious problems on race — and you always have, going back the National Review standing on the side of the Klan against the Freedom Riders, supporting Jim Crow during a time when opposition could have meant something big. It is why the GOP has practically no minorities in the party, why you guys can’t get minorities to vote for your candidates. Curt, y’all have serious problems, some of them mirrored in the kind of proto-racist language you allow to be posted here. You banning me will not change that; it will only mean you and your posters are in even more of an echo chamber than before.
@Billy Bob… you really need to get your two brain cells communicating again. I did not make a “defense” for anything. I merely pointed out what you, yourself, confirmed. That you see racist boogiemen behind every corner. Tell me, isn’t it tiring perpetuating such hate 24/7?
Secondly, I have personally never referred to this POTUS as a “manchild”… oh wait… were it racist, shouldn’t that be “man’chile”? LOL Nor do I attach any racist history to the description, despite your indoctrination that it can *only* be racist in nature.
Do you think uber feminist writer, Bonnie Goldstein, had your racism in mind when she penned her headline, Manchild of the year: Mark Zuckerberg Grows Up?
Think FL skateboarder, Tyler Pacheco, considers his moniker, Manchild, a racist term?
What about the biblical studies for the Rapture, and used for the Latter Rain Movement – The Manchild Ministry. This not only predates this aburd joke for a POTUS, but also predates your own personal beginning of time… the days of slavery in the US.
Now, if I wanted to waste more than 3 minutes on a search engine to demonstrate that your personal and extremely limited racist definition is hardly the case, I’m sure I would provide more fodder to refute your notions. Instead, your petty response again proves that you are not only a disgrace for Chicago higher education, you are unnaturally preoccupied with racism, and thereby read racism into everything you see and read.
Believe you me, I’ve muttered many a description under my breath about this temporary occupant of the WH, but none of it was ever based on his race. Which means you, of course, in addition to attaching racist assaults to every nuance, also deem it fit to paint the entire community with your purported racist views.
You really are a pathetic piece ‘o’ work, dude.
As far as the self anointed superior mantle you attempt to don, I’d say that Aye just slapped your racist butt publicly. Thanks for that entertaining recap, Aye!
openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You had nothing to say about the point of my comment, which was: what was the real reason that crowds of average people began demonstrating against government spending in 2009, but had not really been energized to do so before that.
Your long list of grievances against Republicans is not something I am going to address point by point, as it is something of a non-sequitur. Suffice it to say that it is slanted, selective, makes unsupported assumptions about what I believe, and has a regurgitated quality to it .
It looks pretty bad when you miss the point so completely and then segue immediately into a list of talking points.
@B-Rob: since your have such knowledge about black racial connotations, I would love to hear your opinion on Chrissie Matthews calling me a cracker.
@Sherman: I didn’t miss your point. I thought it was an excellent point. I entirely agree with your point (about the boiling frog). I should have taken the opportunity to congratulate you for having this insight, which I believe is at least partially true. The only thing I have to add is this:
Prior to 2009, the only people complaining about the deficit were Democrats. The only President to make deficit reduction his number one economic priority was Clinton. A great many GOP pundits had been writing, since Reagan, that “deficits don’t matter.” So you had Democrats criticizing Bush deficits for 8 years, with Republicans keeping their mouths shut.
What happened with the 2010 elections, is that the GOP suddenly got deficit religion. The Dem position was that we had an emergency in needing to avoid a Depression. So the GOP seized the deficit mantle. And, yes, the electorate became convinced, for the first time, that the deficit was a real problem. The frog finally realized that the water was boiling.
Since I largely agreed with you, I didn’t have anything serious to debate — except for the following statement:
You were clearly blaming the Democrats for the explosion in the deficit. This accusation was clearly wrong, as I explained. But the electorate believed it.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I dug out Billy Bob’s comments #43, 45 and 46 for everyone’s amusement. Allow me to summarize his views…
It’s a racist term because he sez so, and that’s proven because he is taking offense at it.
okie dokie…
So therefore, if anyone here uses it here after he – with all his higher Chicago learnin’ – informed us of his own personal offense and single definition mentality, we must be racists.
Oh yes… it’s another one of those terms that only a special class of people are allowed to find offensive because of their color. Therefore Facebook’s Zuckerberg isn’t allowed to be offended using this term because he’s not black. Neither is the FL skateboarder. Sportscaster in NY, Jim “the Manchild” Lerch will simply have to change his name. And I suppose the theological world will just have to find another term INRE Revelations so that Billy Bob can’t be offended.
sigh….
Well, Curt… can’t say as we’ll miss much if you move him to the permanent blacklist. I think we’ve pretty much got all of Billy Bob and his views down to predictability. And personally, I’ll be damned if I tiptoe around the likes of him.
Like I said, first and last warning and you chose to go there so you’re gone.
That is exactly what I will not allow. We’ve put up with quite a bit from him but this is the last straw, and then I even gave him one more chance but noooooo. So his ignorance is now gone.
Hmm doesn’t he keep trying to tell us to, “calm down?” Well gee, he can be offended all he likes. Unless he can physicaly force those who offend him from using a computer, phone, or touchpad in real life then he’ll just have to sit and spin in the moment of being offended. Ain’t going to change a damn thing in Reality or what I will post or what others will post.
And if he physicaly attempts to silence opposition, wouldn’t that make him a blaring hypocrite of supporting the “idelogy” of tollerance the Liberal side keeps harponin on?
OpenId, you’re living in a pipe dream of a world. Clinton was President and once again you show your sheer ignorance over what the President or the Executive branch has power within the Federal Government. Here’s a hint: President can not handle the Budget or Taxes, to do so would be an impeachable offense (he can only propose plans that can be examined by Congress/Senate which is the branch that actually DOES handle this matter of power). What “surplus” there was was an accounting fraud put forth by RINO’s (and backed by sitting Democrats) in the Senate to borrow forth monies from People’s Republic of China in 1998 to make up gross shortfalls in Social Security payments. Our nation still had a debt and the supposed, “surplus” was pushed as fact onto the American people with the little white lies of accounting done by the Leglistation branch to hide the fact we were short almost 200 billion dollars for Social Security/Medicare alone and were going to be unable to pay Social Security receivers during his Admin just as much under Bush, Jr.’s years without borrowing. The borrowing has grown rampant the last 6 years, especialy from Democrat domestic programs shoved though since 2006 from Congress that bypassed Bush. China has now started to halt the ablity of the United States from borrowing further from them in fears of themselves becoming unstable economicaly or insolvent. Brick wall is coming up fast for the Demcorats’ and RINO’s borrow and spend policies of a speeding train.
A large portion of our National Budget now goes to paying off interest rates to the Chinese, Japanese and other Creditors whom we’ve borrowed heavily from for the last 13 years. Even if we taxed the citizens at 100 percent income and had 100 percent sales tax, we would NOT be capable of paying off the Chinese for a very long time. The last nation to default on debt owed to the Nation was Tibet. This Nation borrowed only a fraction of what the United States owes to the People’s Republic of China but almost all news groups have turned a blind eye to that reason why China invaded and acquired Tibet for economical insolvency reasons but were quick to pick up the bullshit PUblic Relations reason of forcing out the Dalai Lama for fears of, “insurrections.”
The Military mindset of China and a large portion of Communist politicans in China have not kept it a secert they would endorse the idea of, “re-colonization” of the Northern American landmass via econmical weapons of manipulation, such as them being the Creditor of our debts. To them, our insolvency allows for expanding Global power in economics, political, and military influence and they’re not shy to use brute force to quell problems espeically if there’s Chinese property interests within the United States being threatened (such as the request of the United States to stop spying on West Coast holdings of Chinese firms or face direct war.)