RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/15/2012 3:36:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Regardless of who did what a few years ago is not Sen John McCain(a man I would have been happy to vote for in 2000) engaging in hypocrisy right now.
Especially when one considers that he was just about condi's most vocal supporter in '05


Susan Rice.

Condaleeza Rice.

?
Your point ?
Did I get their names wrong ?



LookieNoNookie -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/15/2012 5:57:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

So are you saying that the left shouldn't hold Susan Rice up to the same level they tried to hold Condoleezza Rice up to? Who exactly is the hypocrite here?

The left set the fucking bar, don't whine when the republicans use it to measure Obama nominations.

The dems made that bed, now they got to sleep in it.

LMAO obstruction my ass... Only a progressive would consider 6 trillion in new spending obstruction.


Hey....it's only 5.82 trillion.



tazzygirl -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/15/2012 7:02:16 PM)

First, the bottom-line number on the debt: Yes, it has grown by $5 trillion during Obama’s tenure. Total debt has increased by $5.5 trillion since January 20, 2009, while the share of that debt held by the public has increased by $5 trillion.

But it’s not entirely correct to hang that increase on "Obama’s spending" alone.

We added up the lost revenue and additional spending each year and then calculated their percentage of the deficits over those three years.

Spending

Spending initiated by Bush policies: 4 percent of total deficits in 2009, 2010 and 2011
Spending initiated by Obama policies: 11 percent
Other increases in discretionary spending: 32 percent
Other increases in mandatory spending: 6 percent

Revenue reductions

Revenue reductions initiated by Bush policies: 11 percent
Revenue reductions initiated by Obama policies: 13 percent
Other unclassified revenue reductions: 5 percent

Interest

Net interest: 19 percent

The spending increases traceable to programs clearly attributable to Obama, combined with the increase in discretionary spending on his watch, account for about 43 percent of the three years worth of deficits.

So if you’re talking about what "drove us $5 trillion deeper in debt," then a clear majority stemmed from sources other than "Obama’s spending."

If you expand the definition from "Obama’s spending" to "Obama’s spending and tax cuts," you get to a total of 56 percent. Throw in 13 percentage points for the added interest costs of Obama’s policies and you’re at 69 percent.

Our ruling

The American Crossroads ad claims that "Obama’s spending drove us $5 trillion deeper in debt."

But not all of the $5 trillion can be attributed to Obama's spending. Much of it can be attributed to his tax cuts and the policies of President Bush. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/09/american-crossroads/ad-says-barack-obamas-spending-drove-us-5-trillion/



Politesub53 -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 2:47:12 AM)

Maybe Rob and Lookie are speaking out gainst tax cuts for the rich Tazzy ?

Stranger things have happened. [;)]



tazzygirl -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 4:42:13 AM)

lol.... 6 trillion in new spending.... they just make me laugh!



LookieNoNookie -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 5:09:10 AM)



[image]local://upfiles/655058/B22B68FC8C924F70A34CC8ED760A8ACF.jpg[/image]



DaddySatyr -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 5:20:30 AM)

To be fair to the socialist currently in office; today's dollars are worth a lot less than what dollars were worth back in FDR's time (our first socialist president).

The best way to look at the rise in the deficit is as a percentage. I don't want to do a mad internet search so, based upon the above chart, it looks like president Ofailure has only raised the deficit by about 25% each year he's been in office (so much for cutting it in half). We have to be fair, it's tough to cut the deficit when you're creating jobs and ending wars and closing Gitmo and ... Oh, wait! The only one of those things he's accomplished was ending one of the wars (and I believe that was timed so that he'd have something positive to run on).

This liar has been an abject failure since he raised his hand and swore an oath he had no intention of upholding.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Hillwilliam -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 5:25:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

To be fair to the socialist currently in office;



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Would you know a Socialist if one walked up and bit you on the ass?[8|]



DaddySatyr -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 5:35:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

To be fair to the socialist currently in office;



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Would you know a Socialist if one walked up and bit you on the ass?[8|]


Yes and I've shown (recently) that Ofailure fits all four qualifications. The only people that don't see it are those that are so blind they refuse to see.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



mnottertail -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 5:46:12 AM)

You have demonstrated no such thing, but you did do a pretty good impression of St. Wrinklemeat as a fiscal disaster, followed closely by W.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 6:03:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

To be fair to the socialist currently in office;



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Would you know a Socialist if one walked up and bit you on the ass?[8|]


Yes and I've shown (recently) that Ofailure fits all four qualifications. The only people that don't see it are those that are so blind they refuse to see.



Peace and comfort,



Michael


You call him a socialist because the media you choose to parrot calls him a socialist.
Please look up the definition of "Socialist" prior to the consumption of your daily Kool-Aid dosage.



Moonhead -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 6:33:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Please look up the definition of "Socialist" prior to the consumption of your daily Kool-Aid dosage.

Oh, don't even get me bloody started on that one...



DaddySatyr -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 9:46:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
You call him a socialist because the media you choose to parrot calls him a socialist.
Please look up the definition of "Socialist" prior to the consumption of your daily Kool-Aid dosage.


Sorry, buddy. I've been calling him a socialist for years. He stinks of it; from the first time he talked about redistribution to when he cried to the SCOTUS that his attempt at government takeover of a large portion of the GDP was a "tax". He's a pinko and has been for a long time.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



DomKen -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 9:52:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
You call him a socialist because the media you choose to parrot calls him a socialist.
Please look up the definition of "Socialist" prior to the consumption of your daily Kool-Aid dosage.


Sorry, buddy. I've been calling him a socialist for years. He stinks of it; from the first time he talked about redistribution to when he cried to the SCOTUS that his attempt at government takeover of a large portion of the GDP was a "tax". He's a pinko and has been for a long time.

Utter nonsense.

Redistribution of wealth is what progressive tazation is all about. Therefore by your criteria Abraham Lincoln was a socialist.

There has been no government takeover of a large part of the GDP. There has been a set of rather mild health insurance regulations passed. No socialist would ever force the majority of his country to participate in the market, the idea is simply absurd.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 9:59:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
You call him a socialist because the media you choose to parrot calls him a socialist.
Please look up the definition of "Socialist" prior to the consumption of your daily Kool-Aid dosage.


Sorry, buddy. I've been calling him a socialist for years. He stinks of it; from the first time he talked about redistribution to when he cried to the SCOTUS that his attempt at government takeover of a large portion of the GDP was a "tax". He's a pinko and has been for a long time.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

I know you've been calling him a socialist for years. If I were to call a common egret a great white heron for years, does that mean I'm correct? No, it just means I'm ignorant concering the finer points of avian identification.

Again, learn what a socialist really is.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 10:02:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
You call him a socialist because the media you choose to parrot calls him a socialist.
Please look up the definition of "Socialist" prior to the consumption of your daily Kool-Aid dosage.


Sorry, buddy. I've been calling him a socialist for years. He stinks of it; from the first time he talked about redistribution to when he cried to the SCOTUS that his attempt at government takeover of a large portion of the GDP was a "tax". He's a pinko and has been for a long time.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

I know you've been calling him a socialist for years. If I were to call a common egret a great white heron for years, does that mean I'm correct? No, it just means I'm ignorant concering the finer points of avian identification.

Again, learn what a socialist really is.


I know what a socialist is. I was answering you, accusing me of parroting anybody.

Hill, you've been decidedly edgy for a couple of months now. You've never been a name-caller before. Please, don't devolve into it, now?



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Hillwilliam -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 10:23:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I know what a socialist is. I was answering you, accusing me of parroting anybody.

Hill, you've been decidedly edgy for a couple of months now. You've never been a name-caller before. Please, don't devolve into it, now?



Peace and comfort,



Michael

What name did I call you? Seriously, you show you don't know what a socialist is by calling the pres one (name calling) and you accuse someone else of calling you names.

I'm simply saying you are incorrect and whoever you are imitating (that's what parrots do) is also incorrect.



tazzygirl -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 10:25:11 AM)

Self-admitting socialists are denying Obama is a socialist.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 10:28:06 AM)

He's basically Dubya Lite except he's been less effective.



subspaceseven -> RE: Hypocrisy.....a tale of two Rice's (11/16/2012 10:51:22 AM)

It seems when faced with FACTS even King has to admit Rice is not to blame....

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

KING: He didn’t know.

Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –

KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”


Today’s comments by King towards the intelligence community’s assessments also mark a sharp departure from his previous accusations that Rice should have known sooner that the intelligence that was presented to her was incorrect. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have both also recently said that Rice should “have known better” than to make the statements she did during her interviews.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02