Democrat Strategy For November: Lie & Cause Hate

[CrusaderFrank]

The nice thing about a printed post is we have a record to verify what was said.

He didn't say that

Say what?

That Obamacare caused $7 trillion in new debt

 

[RKMBrown]

He didn't say that

Say what?

That Obamacare caused $7 trillion in new debt

7trillion in debt and all we got was this piece of shit Obamacare crap that no one but the folks looking to get free money to pay for their pre-existing conditions would want. So exciting I can now force the public to pay to buy me new body parts that I broke when not covered on insurance. Can we apply that to everything? I've got a broken air-conditioner I'd like to replace with a new one for free. Surely you guys won't mind chipping in. Afterall I have better things to do with my money than being responsible. Like going on vacation. You guys go to work to pay for my broken stuff, and I'll just take some well deserved time off.

 

[mudwhistle]

He didn't say that

Say what?

That Obamacare caused $7 trillion in new debt

That's what rw claims he said.

He didn't.

He said
Obama gave us $7 trillion in new debt....


I hope that clears it up. RW is just using lies and deflection.

 

[rightwinger]

Say what?

That Obamacare caused $7 trillion in new debt

That's what rw claims he said.

He didn't.

He said
Obama gave us $7 trillion in new debt....


I hope that clears it up. RW is just using lies and deflection.

Why do conservatives always struggle with the concept of context?

 

[Edgetho]

That Obamacare caused $7 trillion in new debt

That's what rw claims he said.

He didn't.

He said
Obama gave us $7 trillion in new debt....


I hope that clears it up. RW is just using lies and deflection.

Why do conservatives always struggle with the concept of context?

Is that what the socialists are calling lying these days?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[mudwhistle]

That Obamacare caused $7 trillion in new debt

That's what rw claims he said.

He didn't.

He said
Obama gave us $7 trillion in new debt....


I hope that clears it up. RW is just using lies and deflection.

Why do conservatives always struggle with the concept of context?

I don't. You're just moving the goalposts claiming you didn't post what you posted.

Why do liberals always rationalize what is right and what is wrong? Why do they always decide only after considering the political ideology of the source or the subject in question?

 

[mudwhistle]

Many of our problems would be solved if somebody ran all of the Democraps out of Washington.

Fact.

 

[RKMBrown]

Many of our problems would be solved if somebody ran all of the Democraps out of Washington.

Fact.

Most of our problems would be solved if we ran all the socialists out of the democrat and republican parities.

When did the democrats become the party of "entitlement living?"

 

[Spoonman]

These are the topics that Democrats have decided to use in hopes that they won't get clobbered in November:

1. The Koch Brothers - The Koch Brothers have replaced Halliburton as the evil rich. Who cares that Obama has been pumping $85 billion/mo into the stock market since he was re-elected creating another version of corporate welfare.

2. 1%ers - The evil rich will be stressed over and over again, regardless of the fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Harry Reid are all members of the 1%.

3. Racism - Everything is racist if it shows Obama or Democrats in general in a negative light.

4. The War On Women - Democrats are dreaming up different ways to make Republicans look like a bunch of rapists or whatever evil thing they can call them.

5. Ranchers are terrorists - This one fell in their lap, but they were hoping to turn a negative into a positive. It fits all of the stereotypes. They like guns, they're white, they're individualists, they don't go with the program like everyone else. They deserve to be crushed.

6. Gay Rights - Anyone who doesn't bow at the alter of political correctness will be demonized, shunned, their lives destroyed.

7. Obamacare Is Working - They hope to convince us that their fuzzy math has fixed Obamacare. They also hope that we'll forget that most of it has been delayed till after 2016.



Notice none of the issues above involves job creation, national security, foreign relations, a stronger economy, energy independence, or bringing us all together and learning to get along. They believe that division is essential to their goals. Their goal is to turn America into a welfare state and the population subjugated. Social Justice will replace justice for all. Crony Capitalism will replace a strong economy. Only the rich or those who fall in line will prosper.

The closer we get to the mid-terms the worse it's going to get. We need to send a message to these charlatans that we can't be tricked as easily. We're on to them, at least most of us are.

So business as usual I see

 

[Oldstyle]

Your claim that attempts to repeal the ACA have cost taxpayer almost 60 million dollars borders on farce, Luddly. How that number was arrived at shows just how laughably biased the main stream media is when it comes to supporting the progressive agenda.

"CBS' Nancy Cordes reported Wednesday that Republicans' many fruitless attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act have taken up at least 80 hours of time on the House floor since 2010, amounting to two full work weeks. As the House, according to the Congressional Research Service, costs taxpayers $24 million a week to operate, those two weeks amounted to a total cost of approximately $48 million."

Gee, Nancy...are you making the claim that if the House were busy on some OTHER bit of business instead of repealing the ACA that they wouldn't have cost us that 24 million a week? That's about as stupid a piece of "reporting" as I've seen in a long...long...LONG...time!

 

[Oldstyle]

A more intelligent argument could be made that if Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi hadn't passed an absolutely awful piece of legislation in the first place...then Congress wouldn't be wasting time having to "fix" it.

 

[jillian]

Your claim that attempts to repeal the ACA have cost taxpayer almost 60 million dollars borders on farce, Luddly. How that number was arrived at shows just how laughably biased the main stream media is when it comes to supporting the progressive agenda.

"CBS' Nancy Cordes reported Wednesday that Republicans' many fruitless attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act have taken up at least 80 hours of time on the House floor since 2010, amounting to two full work weeks. As the House, according to the Congressional Research Service, costs taxpayers $24 million a week to operate, those two weeks amounted to a total cost of approximately $48 million."

Gee, Nancy...are you making the claim that if the House were busy on some OTHER bit of business instead of repealing the ACA that they wouldn't have cost us that 24 million a week? That's about as stupid a piece of "reporting" as I've seen in a long...long...LONG...time!

you seem to be missing the point. his numbers aren't inaccurate. you just don't like them.

we could always talk about other numbers though... like the 1.4 billion a week the rightwingnut temper tantrum shut down cost in real dollars....

and the 24 billion that it cost our economy...

According to the Congressional Research Service, the last government in 1995 and early 1996 shutdown, which lasted 26 days, removed $1.4 billion from the economy ($2.1 billion in today’s dollars). Federal government contractors were hit especially hard, CRS found.“Of $18 billion in Washington, DC, area contracts, $3.7 billion (over 20 percent) reportedly were affected adversely by the funding lapse," CRS found in an August 2013 report.The OMB estimated that the 27-day 1995-96 shutdown cost a total of $1.4 billion, or about $2 billion in today’s dollars. Some of the lost revenue in fees and fines would eventually be recouped, according to MSNBC. Divide $2 billion by 27 and you get about $74 million a day. - See more at: The Shocking Cost to Taxpayers of a Shutdown | The Fiscal Times

 

[Oldstyle]

Your claim that attempts to repeal the ACA have cost taxpayer almost 60 million dollars borders on farce, Luddly. How that number was arrived at shows just how laughably biased the main stream media is when it comes to supporting the progressive agenda.

"CBS' Nancy Cordes reported Wednesday that Republicans' many fruitless attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act have taken up at least 80 hours of time on the House floor since 2010, amounting to two full work weeks. As the House, according to the Congressional Research Service, costs taxpayers $24 million a week to operate, those two weeks amounted to a total cost of approximately $48 million."

Gee, Nancy...are you making the claim that if the House were busy on some OTHER bit of business instead of repealing the ACA that they wouldn't have cost us that 24 million a week? That's about as stupid a piece of "reporting" as I've seen in a long...long...LONG...time!

you seem to be missing the point. his numbers aren't inaccurate. you just don't like them.

we could always talk about other numbers though... like the 1.4 billion a week the rightwingnut temper tantrum shut down cost in real dollars....

and the 24 billion that it cost our economy...

According to the Congressional Research Service, the last government in 1995 and early 1996 shutdown, which lasted 26 days, removed $1.4 billion from the economy ($2.1 billion in today’s dollars). Federal government contractors were hit especially hard, CRS found.“Of $18 billion in Washington, DC, area contracts, $3.7 billion (over 20 percent) reportedly were affected adversely by the funding lapse," CRS found in an August 2013 report.The OMB estimated that the 27-day 1995-96 shutdown cost a total of $1.4 billion, or about $2 billion in today’s dollars. Some of the lost revenue in fees and fines would eventually be recouped, according to MSNBC. Divide $2 billion by 27 and you get about $74 million a day. - See more at: The Shocking Cost to Taxpayers of a Shutdown | The Fiscal Times

LOL You people are amazing. Kindly explain to me, Jillian how the House working on repealing the ACA cost the American taxpayer a single DIME more than it would have if they were working on any OTHER piece of legislation? Would they not have been in session? Would they have all taken a vacation without pay? Would the House have closed down during these two weeks?

IT'S THE STUPIDEST ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD AND YOU'RE A MORON FOR PUSHING IT OUT THERE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

Your claim that attempts to repeal the ACA have cost taxpayer almost 60 million dollars borders on farce, Luddly. How that number was arrived at shows just how laughably biased the main stream media is when it comes to supporting the progressive agenda.

"CBS' Nancy Cordes reported Wednesday that Republicans' many fruitless attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act have taken up at least 80 hours of time on the House floor since 2010, amounting to two full work weeks. As the House, according to the Congressional Research Service, costs taxpayers $24 million a week to operate, those two weeks amounted to a total cost of approximately $48 million."

Gee, Nancy...are you making the claim that if the House were busy on some OTHER bit of business instead of repealing the ACA that they wouldn't have cost us that 24 million a week? That's about as stupid a piece of "reporting" as I've seen in a long...long...LONG...time!

you seem to be missing the point. his numbers aren't inaccurate. you just don't like them.

we could always talk about other numbers though... like the 1.4 billion a week the rightwingnut temper tantrum shut down cost in real dollars....

and the 24 billion that it cost our economy...

According to the Congressional Research Service, the last government in 1995 and early 1996 shutdown, which lasted 26 days, removed $1.4 billion from the economy ($2.1 billion in today’s dollars). Federal government contractors were hit especially hard, CRS found.“Of $18 billion in Washington, DC, area contracts, $3.7 billion (over 20 percent) reportedly were affected adversely by the funding lapse," CRS found in an August 2013 report.The OMB estimated that the 27-day 1995-96 shutdown cost a total of $1.4 billion, or about $2 billion in today’s dollars. Some of the lost revenue in fees and fines would eventually be recouped, according to MSNBC. Divide $2 billion by 27 and you get about $74 million a day. - See more at: The Shocking Cost to Taxpayers of a Shutdown | The Fiscal Times

LOL You people are amazing. Kindly explain to me, Jillian how the House working on repealing the ACA cost the American taxpayer a single DIME more than it would have if they were working on any OTHER piece of legislation? Would they not have been in session? Would they have all taken a vacation without pay? Would the House have closed down during these two weeks?

IT'S THE STUPIDEST ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD AND YOU'RE A MORON FOR PUSHING IT OUT THERE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

with all do respect. you can lol and post in caps til your head explodes. you, like most extremists, ignore reality and ignore numbers you don't like. the REALITY is your failed House did NOTHING.... and cost us a fortune... .which is why all you wackos should be voted out of office.... because people who hate government and refuse to govern shouldn't be running government.

I will say that I particularly enjoyed how you totally failed to address the numbers I did give you. and you HAVE read the cost. the fact that you don't like fact-based reality is not my problem. it is, however, why you lose national elections.

but please, run around stamping your widdle feet.

you're dismissed now.

 

[KNB]

because people who hate government and refuse to govern shouldn't be running government.

That should be someone's 2016 campaign slogan.

 

[Oldstyle]

you seem to be missing the point. his numbers aren't inaccurate. you just don't like them.

we could always talk about other numbers though... like the 1.4 billion a week the rightwingnut temper tantrum shut down cost in real dollars....

and the 24 billion that it cost our economy...

LOL You people are amazing. Kindly explain to me, Jillian how the House working on repealing the ACA cost the American taxpayer a single DIME more than it would have if they were working on any OTHER piece of legislation? Would they not have been in session? Would they have all taken a vacation without pay? Would the House have closed down during these two weeks?

IT'S THE STUPIDEST ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD AND YOU'RE A MORON FOR PUSHING IT OUT THERE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

with all do respect. you can lol and post in caps til your head explodes. you, like most extremists, ignore reality and ignore numbers you don't like. the REALITY is your failed House did NOTHING.... and cost us a fortune... .which is why all you wackos should be voted out of office.... because people who hate government and refuse to govern shouldn't be running government.

I will say that I particularly enjoyed how you totally failed to address the numbers I did give you. and you HAVE read the cost. the fact that you don't like fact-based reality is not my problem. it is, however, why you lose national elections.

but please, run around stamping your widdle feet.

you're dismissed now.

Before you "dismiss" me (yeah, like THAT'S gonna work!) did you want to explain how working on the ACA cost taxpayers anymore money than working on any OTHER piece of legislation? Or did you want to "dismiss" that question because you can't answer it?

 

[hangover]

They're just the easiest bleeding heart unwitting tools.

Notice those that make insults of "bleeding hearts" don't have one. So they hate.

 

[mudwhistle]

you seem to be missing the point. his numbers aren't inaccurate. you just don't like them.

we could always talk about other numbers though... like the 1.4 billion a week the rightwingnut temper tantrum shut down cost in real dollars....

and the 24 billion that it cost our economy...

LOL You people are amazing. Kindly explain to me, Jillian how the House working on repealing the ACA cost the American taxpayer a single DIME more than it would have if they were working on any OTHER piece of legislation? Would they not have been in session? Would they have all taken a vacation without pay? Would the House have closed down during these two weeks?

IT'S THE STUPIDEST ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD AND YOU'RE A MORON FOR PUSHING IT OUT THERE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

with all do respect. you can lol and post in caps til your head explodes. you, like most extremists, ignore reality and ignore numbers you don't like. the REALITY is your failed House did NOTHING.... and cost us a fortune... .which is why all you wackos should be voted out of office.... because people who hate government and refuse to govern shouldn't be running government.

I will say that I particularly enjoyed how you totally failed to address the numbers I did give you. and you HAVE read the cost. the fact that you don't like fact-based reality is not my problem. it is, however, why you lose national elections.

but please, run around stamping your widdle feet.

you're dismissed now.

So is your useless post.

The House cannot run the government by itself. Dingy Harry makes sure of that....

 

[RKMBrown]

They.
Don't.
Care.

Get it? They just don't give a fuck.

They know they're lying. They know they're corrupt, dishonest and thieving scum.

And, they just don't care.

All they care about is their own sick, twisted beliefs. They know that when they fuck everything up (and they will) that we'll put some Republicans in to straighten it out. And that most of the corrupt programs they've instituted will remain.

They had no intentions of getting the ACA right. None. They have no intentions of getting anything right.

All they want to do is to get sewn into the fabric of the Country and let us worry about it later, let us fix it later.

But this time, I think they're going to be in for a big surprise. I think we let the whole thing fail.

The ACA isn't like Social Security or Medicare. It isn't like the hundreds of other Programs instituted through bi-partisan compromise and debate.

It's a fucking mess. And I think Republicans are intent on bringing it down.

Hard.

About time they grew a set. I think the ACA hits the ground so hard, it bounces.

Too bad, really. We needed something like it. But dimocrap scum are too stupid to do anything right. Always have been, always will be.

I think we bury the ACA. Deep.

It might even be repealed by the SCOTUS.

It didn't originate in the House, as rrequired by the Constitution.

What happened was Harry the scumbag motherfucker Reid took a harmless Bill passed unanimously in the House.... Something about Housing for the Military dunno and completely gutted it, replacing every line in it except for the first few words and turned it into the ACA.

Not a word of the ACA was written in the House, as required by the Constitution.

This whole process has been one lie after another.

But look at who we're talking about. dimocrap scum. The lyingest motherfucking scum to ever walk the earth.

All of them. Top to bottom, inside and out, ALL of them

Some republicans maybe. Others not so much. Remember that many of the republican party are really just dumbocrat crybabies that switched party to screw over the conservatives of their respective states.

Republicans tend to police their ranks better than dimocraps do.

Catch one breaking the Law? He's gonzo. Hell, even when they're politically and illegally charged by dimocrap scum like Tom DeLay was, we put him on the curb.

Charlie Crist? Yeah, he put one over on us the first time. He's one of the ones that I think you're referring to.

We put his ass on the curb with the rest of the trash. He went to work for the sleaziest, scummiest ambulance-chasing douchebag on the planet after his days in politics.

I immediately tagged him as a dimocrap when that happened; even though he hadn't announced anything.

Shortly after, he announced his decision to run for the senate -- Again. With the backing of the scummiest lawyer on earth.

Yeah, there's dirtbag Republicans. No doubt about it.

But we're talking about 1%.... Maybe 3%, tops.

the dimocrap party? The ENTIRE party is nothing but scum. Top to fucking bottom. scum.

Liars, thieves, rapists, pederasts, druggies...... The whole fucking party is nothing but a collection of scumbags. Not 5 or 10%. I'm talking about the majority of them.... At least 80% of them are serial dirtbags.

And the voters are just as bad.

Republicans "police" their ranks better in that manner.

However in the manner I was discussing democrats do a better job than pubs. What I was talking about is cross overs where devout socialists are allowed, sometimes even invited to run as republicans. These republicans in name only have pretty much taken all of the top spots in the party.

The democrats are much better at making sure only true socialists are invited into the top ranks and only true socialists get invites to national primary ballots.