Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41921 - 41940 of total 54831 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 21, 2013 - 12:07am PT
Final Tally Shows Obama First Since ’56 to Win 51% Twice
By Greg Giroux - Jan 4, 2013 2:09 PM MT

Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice, according to a revised vote count in New York eight weeks after the Nov. 6 election.

State election officials submitted a final tally on Dec. 31 that added about 400,000 votes, most of them from provisional ballots in the Democratic stronghold of New York City that were counted late in part because of complications caused by Hurricane Sandy.

President Barack Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 percent mark in two elections since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four consecutive White House races.

The president nationally won 65.9 million votes -- or 51.1 percent -- against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who took 60.9 million votes and 47.2 percent of the total cast, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 percent mark in two elections since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four consecutive White House races. Roosevelt received 53.4 percent of the vote -- his lowest -- in his last race in 1944.

The nation’s unemployment rate, 7.8 percent when Obama succeeded Bush in January 2009, rose to 10 percent that October before falling to 7.7 percent last November. Obama is the second president since World War II to win re-election with a jobless rate above 6 percent. The other was Republican Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 21, 2013 - 12:28am PT
get with the program Ken, that wasnt the question.

Of course not.

The questions was "Why do you support that dumb black affirmative action retard who is not qualified to be President?"

I just don't accept the premises of the question.
Nohea

Trad climber
Living Outside the Statist Quo
Mar 21, 2013 - 02:37am PT


The questions was "Why do you support that dumb black affirmative action retard who is not qualified to be President?"

I just don't accept the premises of the question.


The question from my response to a pathetic post was......and I quote...


Mar 20, 2013 - 03:55pm PT
if Obama were white

Damn dood that is one pathetic post....is not the Pres hapa? Can you name any other junior senator with no other congressional experience that became President?


He is quite intelligent, he played this nation pretty well.

Aloha,
Will
jghedge

climber
Mar 21, 2013 - 01:05pm PT
Did You Vote For Bush In 2004? Then You Voted For ObamaCare.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/philip-klein-iraq-war-made-obamacare-possible/article/2524926


This week brought two milestones: It has been 10 years since the United States invaded Iraq, and three years since President Obama's health care legislation became law. It's fitting that the two events coincided, because it was the Iraq War that made the passage of Obamacare possible.

Ten years later, many supporters of the Iraq War spent this week either apologizing for or justifying their backing of the war. Personally, I supported the war at the time and the subsequent "surge" strategy, but in hindsight, given the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it's hard to see how the endeavor was worth the tremendous financial cost and American deaths involved.

As if that weren't enough, one of the realities that should tip the scales for pro-war conservatives is that the Iraq War paved the way for one of the most significant expansions of the federal government in U.S. history.

In 2004, with the memory of the defeat of the Clinton health care plan still fresh enough in people's minds, the idea of a Democratic president passing universal health care legislation would have seemed like a distant liberal fantasy. In fact, in the Democratic primary, even Howard Dean's health care proposal (that mostly built on existing government programs) was tame by today's standards.

But by 2006, with sectarian violence escalating in Iraq, President Bush's approval rating had cratered and Democrats were able to take over both chambers of Congress in an election that was largely a backlash against the war. Exit polls showed that 56 percent of Americans who voted in that year's midterm elections opposed the Iraq War -- and 80 percent of that group voted for Democrats.

Suddenly, there was a change in what seemed politically possible. In 2007, as the Democratic presidential primary season got under way, emboldened liberal activists were able to convince all of the top contenders to release universal health care plans.

The 2008 economic collapse may have given the final boost to Obama's candidacy, but Americans' disillusionment with the Iraq War created the foundation for his call for change. Though there was little in the way of policy differences between Obama and his rivals, led by Hillary Clinton, one of the most significant factors that set him apart was that he had opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. This allowed him to argue to voters that what he lacked in experience he made up for in judgment -- an argument that he'd continue to make in the general election against Republican Sen. John McCain.

On top of Obama's 2008 victory, congressional Democrats were able to build on their gains from 2006, so that once all the votes were counted (and Sen. Arlen Specter defected) they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. It was only the lopsided nature of the majorities that allowed a plan as ambitious as Obamacare to become law.

In its first go-round, the health care law passed the House despite 39 Democratic "no" votes. There were 34 Democratic "no" votes in final passage. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid had to cut some ugly deals (such as the "Cornhusker kickback" on Medicaid) to clear the 60-vote threshold, with all Democrats and zero Republicans voting for the legislation.

It's quite possible that a Democrat still would have won the White House in 2008, even had the Iraq War never been fought. But that Democrat would not likely have been Obama, nor anyone nearly as liberal. And were it not for the war, no Democratic president would have come into office with as much political capital -- or with such large majorities in Congress -- as Obama did.

It's hard to see how Obamacare would have become law if Bush had never invaded Iraq. This is a bitter pill to swallow for those conservatives who supported the war and bitterly fought Obamacare.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
What Sequester? Feds Spend $384,949 to Study Duck Penises




Kyle Becker
On March 21, 2013
https://twitter.com/kylenbecker

Most Americans don’t give a pluck about ducks. Yet, even while the White House is shutting down tours and threatening to cancel April Fool’s Day egg rolls, it is still spending major bling to study duck junk.

CNS News found the federal study and reported it on Tuesday:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded a $384,949 grant to Yale University for a study on “Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”, according to the recovery.gov website.

The grant description says,“The project examines how reproductive morphology covaries with season, age, and social environment in a diverse sample of duck species that differ in ecology, territoriality and breeding system.”

Since the study was a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, hot duck lovin’ may be the only real stimulus that came out of the $812 billion spending package.

But seriously, this is why we are in this debt/deficit debacle. I’m sure there is some absolutely fantastic reason to study ‘duck junk,’ but when our government runs gimungous deficits each year (looking at you, Oval Office), an expenditure like this, no matter how small or large, just looks utterly insane.







Yeperee folks,, the gubbmint DOESNT have enough $$$$ to take care of our Vets and homeless, but we will give PAKISTAN millions,, and spend nearly 400 K to study,,,,,duck penises......CANT MAKE THIS SHYT UP>>>IMPEACH THEM ALL!
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2013 - 01:40pm PT
Yep ee
the Republicans Voted to make the cuts in the sequester, not cuts that would matter

Mitt Romney cheated the Gov. out hundreds of millions dollars in taxes he should have paid, that would have paid for lot of duck studies and Vet. jobs
Right Rong?

Vote out all Republicans and right wingers, then we would have the money to pay for our Nation

The Republicans are only interested in ruining the Gov., they hate the hand that feeds them, they are trying to kill it off, and kill all of us along with it

You can only bite the hand that feeds you so long, and then it bites back

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
Just have Michelle NOT go on so many vacations, and the duck penises shall be covered.


edit: and ANYONE,, please TRY and justify 400K to study,,, DUCK PENISES!????




edit: ANYONE want to justify giving PAKISTAN money for THEIR education system right now??? We cant take care of our Vets, nor our own,, but we are GIVING money we dont even have to PAKISTAN, the ally-enemy???? F#CK Pakistan...We can get our dental tools elswhere.
Gary

Social climber
Right outside of Delacroix
Mar 21, 2013 - 02:56pm PT
Ron, I used to hear all these mocking reports of government studies on insect mating. What a joke! Studying beetles doing the nasty?

Well, it turns out they figured out non-toxic ways to control some pests.

Sucks, huh?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 21, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
Ron,

The Senate won't give up its barbershop, which loses about $350,000.00/yr (or $3,500.00 per Senator). Of course, to paraphrase Jay Leno, losing $350,000.00/year makes it the most profitable government enterprise.

John
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 02:58pm PT
Gary,, theres a book of non-toxic natural pest remedies that was first printed in the ealry 50s...Still holds tru today...that wheel dun bin invented long ago..And DIDNT cost the gubbmint a million...



edit: John LOL! GUD ONE!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 03:48pm PT
Kinda odd that Hamas would lob missiles into Isreal during Obamas visit to Israel. Some cease fire eh? And the rumor is out that Syria is already engaging in chemical weapon use.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Mar 21, 2013 - 03:49pm PT
Most Americans don’t give a pluck about ducks.

Most Americans don't have a clue about science, let alone basic research. We've gone from being the intellectual powerhouse to one of the crowd due in large part to that sentiment.

This is what happens when you let Joe the Plumber types have access to the controls...
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 03:54pm PT

“Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”





I can see this^^^^^^^ having world wide implications of all manner,, yeahhh thatzit..
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2013 - 03:57pm PT
and we forgot to make education a priority!
some people can't even spell!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

there is nothing wrong with spending money studying duck penises

What is wrong, is letting the Republicans bankrupt us, then they complain that we are spending too much

what a bunch of stupid idiot hypocrites
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
Homeles Vets culd use that duck penis money a bit more dontcha think?

Hard to complain about going bankrupt when yur gubbmint approves a 400K government funded study of ,,, duck penises.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
The Republicans voted Not to give the Vets jobs

so hence, the vets get no jobs

rong, do you Not understand how our Gov works

we could have jobs for vets and money to study duck sex you know, they are not incompatible
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 04:10pm PT
Well doc,, maybe in your world they are comparable.. I however, have to wonder,, during sequestrations,, my tax monies will be used to study the social implications of,,,duck penises. They might close some natl parks,, but by golly gee whizzikers we are gonna study the shyt outta some duck penises..
jghedge

climber
Mar 21, 2013 - 04:31pm PT
"Well doc,, maybe in your world they are comparable.."


Amazing to see someone take so much pride in their ignorance





Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 21, 2013 - 04:46pm PT
Ron said:

Just have Michelle NOT go on so many vacations, and the duck penises shall be covered.


well Ron, I am quite sure you know, knowing how you fact check before speaking, that taxpayers do not pay for any First Lady's private vacations, so I don't know how you would imply that

---------


For security and other reasons, the President, Vice President, and First Lady use military aircraft when they travel.1 The White House generally categorizes the trips as fulfilling either official or political functions. Often, a trip involves both official and political, or unofficial, activities. When a trip is for an official function, the government pays all costs, including per diem (food and lodging), car rentals, and other incidental expenses. When a trip is for political or unofficial purposes, those involved must pay for their own food and lodging and other related expenses, and they must also reimburse the government with the equivalent of the airfare that they would have paid had they used a commercial airline. When a trip involves both official and political activities, a formula determines the amount to be reimbursed for that part of the trip involving political activities. Whether a trip is for official or political purposes, the Air Force pays all operational and other costs incurred by the use of the aircraft. While the travel policies of specific Administrations concerning the reimbursement of expenses for unofficial travel generally are not publicly available, it appears that policy guidelines developed by the Reagan White House have served as a basis for the travel policies of subsequent Administrations.

CRS Report for Congress
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS21835_20070410.pdf
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 05:22pm PT
who in the hell pays the US AIR FORCE Norton?? Shes been on like 40 sme vacations. ALL tax payer dimes.
Messages 41921 - 41940 of total 54831 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews