Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Simple Hannity Says
It isn't so much that Sean Hannity criticizes the President. Presidents, folks, SHOULD BE CRITICIZED, scrutinized, challenged, etc.. It's the fact that he a) demeans and ridicules him and b) lies his frigging brains out while doing so. Just take the other night, for instance. He stares into the camera and says (to the effect), "The 'anointed one' wants to raise your taxes."...And the fact that he never gets called on any of this!! a) Nobody's ever there to tell him that the President wasn't anointed but elected and elected decidedly. b) Nobody's ever there to tell him that the President only wants to raise taxes on the top 1-2% of Americans. c) Nobody's ever there to tell him that Mr. Obama has repeatedly shown a willingness to compromise on this and a whole host of issues (I, along with David Frum and others, still say that the Republicans should have taken Mr. Obama's bluff - if in fact it was a bluff - on that $4,000,000,000,000 package, 3-4 to 1 in favor of spending cuts). Nada. Nada, folks. And all of this, of course, while Mr. Hannity's incredibly gullible audience continues to dully lap it up. Unbe-frigging-lievable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Careful, Will, you are starting to sound like a liberal. :)
Jerry Critter: Careful, Will, you are starting to sound like a liberal.
Sorry, Jerry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you (for the first time).
a) Hannity is an easy target. b) He's praising Obama for "compromising" by giving the Republicans virtually everything they want before negotiations start. c) He likes the deal that cuts the big three. Liberals oppose that deal.
I kind of like Obama, Jerry. And I'm certainly reticent to once again hand all of Washington back to the Republicans.............P.S. If Mr. Obama is lucky enough to get a second term and he wants a Republican in his cabinet, might I recommend a Bruce Bartlett?
Just for the record, wd, the plan that Marcus and I worked on was probably more along the lines of 1 to 1, cuts to revenues, significantly MORE liberal than Mr. Obama's compromise. And I did say that the Republicans were idiots for not accepting the President's proposal. For whatever that's worth.
If Mr. Obama is lucky enough to get a second term...
Given the personal crap thrown at his wife, daughters, and him by lefty nitwits and right-wing brown shirts if I was Obama I'd tell them all to take the job and shove it.
If Obama were to tell america to take the job and shove it....there would be a huge sigh of relief from coast to coast.Maybe not from the majority of posters on this blog who find his failed policies close to the best thing since night baseball but from most of america.
Most of America realizes Barack Obama's policies are "failed"? I wonder if Rusty will continue to believe this after Obama is elected to a second term.
Will: Hannity is but a symptom of a larger ill...its the inability to see the big picture. Alas, the farce unfolding in Washington is more of the same on a bigger stage. I wanna say it reminds me of little kids fighting in the sand box but small children, even when fighting, retain a modicum of cuteness. There is nothing remotely cute about this debacle...And we can even see it here on this blog. You have posters forever duking it out over ideology...never giving an inch, never giving it rest. Another day in paradise...
I'm not ready to give up on divided government yet, folks. Obama and a much more practical Republican Congress (if in fact that can ever be achieved) would certainly be better than the Republicans (and, yes, maybe even the Democrats) taking over completely.............And let me ask you something, Russ. If it finally comes down to Obama vs. Bachmann (it probably won't but humor me here), are you telling us that you would actually vote for Bachmann? Really?
Actually Will,I'd vote for either a broomstick,an empty bucket or a discarded half eaten Snicker's bar before I'd vote for Obama.
I find it hard to imagine a guy as smart as you is bamboozled by this president.His policies are a total failure.Just look at a wasted 800 billion dollar so called stimulus package or pulling 500 billion out of Medicare to help fund a dogs breakfast of a healthcare plan.Will,if you think this is good stuff you need to stop smoking that salvia.
I agree with Marcus that Washington is dysfunctional. But as to WHY that is... I strongly disagree that the reason is because both sides are duking it out over ideology.
I think it's pretty clear that the Boner and Cantor would have been able to reach an agreement with the President already if it were not for the Tea Party. Blame lies exclusively with them.
I'd support divided government... so long as it was divided between Democrats and Progressives. The current government we have is divided between Democrats, Republicans and morons. The divided government we had before the midterms is responsible for the economic downturn. I say anyone who supports either of those forms of divided government it is a part of the problem.
Here's a news flash WD...the government before the midterms was'nt divided.The dems controlled everything.So I guess what you're saying is they are responsible for this mess.I always thought you were a conservative at heart....welcome home son,welcome home.
Rusty: the government before the midterms wasn't divided. So I guess what you're saying is they are responsible for this mess.
I'm not saying Obama and the Democratic Congress were responsible. The economic downturn began on bush's watch. I mispoke.
Yes, Russ, the stimulus (which, I agree, could have been FAR better) was 800 billion (300-something being tax-cuts to placate the Republicans). But the Bush tax cuts have cost the treasury 3.7 trillion over the past 10 years (let's say 3 trillion, in that, yes, some economic stimulation could have resulted from them) and the 2 Bush wars probably another 2 trillion on top of that. Throw in the Medicare D prescription drug plan and it seems to me that there is MORE than enough blame to go around. And, come on Russ, this Bachmann chick says that she won't vote to raise the debt-ceiling NO MATTER WHAT! No, Obama isn't perfect but Michele Bachmann is nuts.
And she's kind of a hypocrite, too. She bad-mouths (in some cases, justifiably) the government but she herself has basically been feeding off the trough for most of her adult life (farm subsidies, her husband taking Medicaid patients, working for the IRS, taking government healthcare, etc.).
So, wd, you'd support a government that included some blue-dogs in it? Wow, maybe there is some hope for you yet.
Calm down Will,you'll never see Bachmann on the 2012 ticket...nor will you see Palin or Pawlenty or Cain or Santorum.Now you very well may see Romney or Perry or Rubio or Christie or Thune or Jindal but you will not see Bachmann.
If unemployment is over 9% this time next year there will be blood in the water and Obie will be in deep doo doo.Like Trump was,I think Bachmann is good comedy.BTW,at the initial implementation of the "Bush tax cuts" unemployment was between 5.5 and 6%.A hell of a lot more americans were paying taxes and a whole lot less were collecting unemployment checks.You do also realize there are more people using food stamps today then ever?
Not a lot of us conservatives were fans of Bush's second term and we are honest enough to admit Obie walked into a tuff job,but the fact also is he has'nt done anything to improve the situation,in fact his policies have made the nations economy worse then Bush ever left it.The president needs to stop crying and friggin do something different then he has been...it aint working.
Rusty to be fair, this economy has not responded in any predictable fashion. The Fed cut interest rates. This was a basic strategy employed in the Reagan years. It worked then but not now...interest rates can't go any lower. Dubya cut taxes. Employment was stable but real wages and growth were stagnant. (plus we were fighting wars...you dont cut taxes when you are fighting wars.) The tax cuts are still in place after a decade. When in a downturn you stimulate the economy...nothing contraversal here. It hasnt worked. The problem with the presidents stimulus was a)The funds was were never targeted for maixmum effectiveness and b)The stimulus was never large enough to make a real impact. I know your and others have a problem with point B but think about it. If we invested even at half the level of war expenditiures on infastructure, powergrids and water supplylines we would be in much better shape now. Some expenditures aren't bad...there are investments. The other problem we have now is making the kind of cuts that are need will cost jobs in the short term. Some analysis suggest that a 4 trillion dollar reduction will cost us at least a million jobs. If that happens, who is gonna get blamed? The president. The cuts should be measured, careful and focus on things that dont kill jobs. (Closing foreign military bases, ending oil and gas subsidies...) We hear about cuts but no one seems to know what we are going cut. When you cut through the partisan fog, the President tried to do the right thing by advocating a balanced approach. I tend to agree with WD that the Tea Party faction keeps throwing wrenchs in the gears...
WD said: "I think it's pretty clear that the Boner"
Yup. Whether or not penis jokes at the expense of congressman's names are OK or not clearly depends on the party of the congressman.
Marcus said: "plus we were fighting wars...you dont cut taxes when you are fighting wars."
Sorry, Marcus, but the terrorists are our enemy, not the American public. Assault the enemy, not our wallets.
dmarks: Yup. Whether or not penis jokes at the expense of congressman's names are OK or not clearly depends on the party of the congressman.
If you're implying that's what I think -- you're wrong. I never said that was the case.
WHY would I say NO to making fun of Anthony Wiener's name? He did it himself.
I only said something when you called Michael Savage "Michael Weiner". Because (1) "Weiner" may be his actual last name, but it isn't the name he goes by (2) I wondered how you thought anyone should know who you were talking about, and (3) I was calling you out on your hypocrisy. I said you calling him "Weiner" was juvenile... and you AGREED.
Myself, I said that there is nothing wrong with a little juvenile humor now and then. You think you've caught me in a lie or act of hypocrisy... but you're wrong.
dmarks: the terrorists are our enemy, not the American public. Assault the enemy, not our wallets.
Not raising taxes on the wealthy and using that money on programs to stimulate the economy is a big part of the reason the economy isn't recovering. So, by not raising taxes the "American public" IS being assaulted.
So, by refusing the plunder more from us, the would-be plunderer is assaulting us.
Bass-ackwards logic you have.
dmarks: So, by refusing the plunder more from us, the would-be plunderer is assaulting us.
Absolutely, although taxation isn't "plunder". The Republicans are proposing cutting programs that benefit the middle class and poor. Cutting those programs will be anti-simulative and hurt the economy... thus "assaulting" everyone (except the very wealthy).
Also, there is a serious flaw in your logic... in the past you've voiced support for welfare programs (you said we should eliminate the minimum wage and give welfare to some people who need it).
So how can we pay for this welfare if we don't "plunder"? Certainly some Republicans would consider paying for welfare programs YOU SUPPORT via taxation "plunder".
The plunder you support is OK, but the plunder I support is not OK? So, who decides how much plunder is OK? YOU? If so, why?
Wow,1.3% growth in the first quarter.Thanks Obie.....great job.
dmarks: I agree if we go to war we should assault the enemy. But wars cost money. They are very expensive...you have to pay for them, ergo, you dont cut taxes when fighting a war.
Perhaps we should go to war less often. And when we do have clear cut objectives and an exit strategy.
Wel Said Rational Nation...I couldn't agree more.
I third it.
How about going to war only when Congress officially declares it instead of handing authority over to the president (which is what happened with Afghanistan and Iraq)?
And, before you say that's a good idea Will... remember that you supported the Afghanistan invasion quite vociferously, insisting over and over that the vote Congress did take totally justified it... even though the Constitution says things should have been done quite differently.
I initially supported the Afghan invasion as a response to 9/11. Once we annihilated al Qaeda and destroyed their training facilities, in my opinion we should have vacated (perhaps leaving behind a small anti-terrorism contingent) the country. I am, and have always been, an opponent of nation-building.
I know that Will. You supported the unconstitutional way we went to war with Afghanistan.
The Constitution says a) only Congress can declare war, and b) treaties we sign -- including the UN charter -- are the "law of the land"... which means bush violated the Constitution by not obtaining authorization from the UN.
Unlike Will I support adhering to the Constitution.
Taking a couple of months to annihilate a terrorist organization that attacked us is a hell of a lot more Constitutional than what Mr. Obama is presently doing in Libya and Pakistan, and what he's continuing to do in Afghanistan AND what liberal darling LBJ did in Vietnam to the tune of 30,000 dead American soldiers.
From Wikipedia, "The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto."
The initial action against al Qaeda was totally within Mr. Bush's authority. Yes, he eventually went beyond this authority and THAT I do not condone.
Will: The initial action against al Qaeda was totally within Mr. Bush's authority.
No it wasn't. It was unconstitutional and violated international law.
I don't support what Obama is doing in Libya either. You speak as if I do.
It wasn't a war (going after al Qaeda). It was the use of military power to go after the ingrates who attacked us on 9/11. The entire country was unified and to say that this initial response wasn't justified flatly puts you in the 1% of the 1%.............The Taliban said that they wanted "evidence". But what if that evidence contained (and I'm sure that it did - common sense) in it vital national security information? What then, wd?
Will: It wasn't a war (going after al Qaeda). It was the use of military power...
Just like Vietnam was a "police action"?
The Korean War was an undeclared war, too. Bush got a 99-1 declaration of force measure from the Senate and literally NO Democratic opposition on Afghanistan for years. IN FACT, the Democrats (Obama, especially) continuously referred to Afghanistan as the "good war" said that Bush should have been doing MORE. Face it, dude, Democrats have historically been just as reckless when it comes to foreign policy as Republicans. I love Harry Truman but I still get a little bit queasy thinking about that second H-bomb.
I don't know why you keep bringing up Obama and most Democrats supporting the invasion. Do you think I'm in denial and believe Democrats didn't support it? Is that why you capped "in fact"?
I'm not in denial dude. I know who supported the war.
Why do you bring up the Korean war? Are you saying we have a history of violating the Constitution... so that makes it OK and we should keep doing it?
btw, the War Powers Resolution says, "the President can send U.S. armed forces into action... in case of a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".
The War Powers Resolution (and the 60 day provision) do not (or did not, since we're past the 60 day mark) apply since the US/territories/possessions/armed forces were not attacked. Obama had ZERO authority to order any kind of military action in Libya.
The United States WASN'T ATTACKED????
Will: The United States WASN'T ATTACKED????
Are you referring to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103? That was 23 years ago... and President Obama didn't give that as a justification for military action in Libya. He said we were supporting the rebels.
So... to answer your question, I'm going to say "no"... Libya didn't attack the US.
No, I was talking about 9/11.
I see now that your previous comment was about Libya. No, I totally agree with you on that one.
Post a Comment