Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

DEBT: Republicans trying to wreck the economy

Letter by Kathy Gilman, Steilacoom on July 8, 2011 at 11:58 am with 108 Comments »
July 8, 2011 12:49 pm

It is a strange time. Having succeeded in shutting down the state of Minnesota, the Republicans are threatening to do it to the whole country. And they are rejecting all attempts at compromise. They want what they want, period.

In Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Texas and other states under tea party control, there are no job bills, just cuts in corporate tax rates; cuts in social services; and attacks on public unions, teachers, public education and women’s reproductive rights. Although taxes on the wealthiest of Americans are at record low levels, any attempts to raise them are considered anathema.

We are broke, they cry, conveniently forgetting that they all happily voted to raise the debt limit seven times under George W. Bush, while running two ruinously expensive wars off the books.

It appears that their main agenda is to wreck the economy, knowing that it is their only chance to defeat the president next year. This is not governance; it is an abject and total flight from responsibility.

Leave a comment Comments → 108
  1. Roncella says:

    kathy, President Obama and democrats have added over 4 trillion dollars to an already overspent budget, and they accomplished this in less than three years.

    Its time to balance the books and get a real Budget in place. Its time the President and the Dems. and Establishment Republicans get behind the Budget as proposed by Rep. Ryan of Wisc. No its not perfect and it takes 10 or more years before the budget shows real improvement, but will lead us out of the mess the economy is currently in.

    The latest unemployment figure is 9.2%. The real unemployment figure is closer to 17%. This is getting very serious now.

    Maybe President Obama should consider putting off another vacation to Matha’s Vineyard in a few weeks, Ya Think ….Maybe it time Obama puts his Tele-prompter in the closet and rolls his sleeves up and gets to work.

  2. nwcolorist says:

    We are in deep trouble because of out of control spending, by both parties.We can keep raising taxes and the debt ceiling, but it will NOT solve the core problem, only delay it.

    Forty years of irresponsible spending has finally caught up with us. The chickens have come home to roost. We can take our medicine now, or later. It’s our choice.

  3. SadujTogracse says:

    Republicans are trying to wreck the economy? Newsflash Kathy, it’s already wrecked. Your selective amnesia is forgetting the fact that the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency from Jan. 2009 until Jan. 2011. They took a bad economy and made it worse.

  4. KARDNOS says:

    “SadujTogracse says:
    July 8, 2011 at 1:54 pm
    Republicans are trying to wreck the economy? Newsflash Kathy, it’s already wrecked. Your selective amnesia is forgetting the fact that the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency from Jan. 2009 until Jan. 2011. They took a bad economy and made it worse.

    and your selective memory is that the GOP controlled the House, Senate and Administration from 2001 to 2007, when the damage was done as the debt doubled. The Wall Street crash was in September of 2008.

  5. KARDNOS says:

    “They took a bad economy and made it worse.”

    Right out of the Mitt Romney playbook. Of course he had to backtrack on that statement when proven wrong.

  6. KARDNOS says:

    “Forty years of irresponsible spending has finally caught up with us”

    So that means that the Reagan era had irresponsible spending? Bush 1. Bush 2, Ford?

    How about 8 years of irresponsible spending and two wars that were not accounted for?

  7. Roncella says:

    KARDNOS, Your finally right about something you just posted, Hold the presses !!

    President Bush was very wrong to not have used his veto pen many many many many times while President.

    Bush let the Dems and establishment Republicans spend wayyyyyyy too much without stopping them when he had the chance.

    Now lets fast forward to the Present, President Obama and Reid and Pelosi are responsible for spending 4 trillion Yes Trillion dollars in less than three years, Now Thats Some Real Fast Spending, with nothing to show for it.

  8. SadujTogracse says:

    Difference is Kard I recognize the economy was bad in 2008, you fail to admit Obama’s responsibility in making it worse. In Jan. 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Now it is 9.2%.

    Only in Kardnos’ world does that mean things are getting better.

  9. menopaws says:

    Kathy has my mantra—TWO WARS, tax cuts and people don’t understand how we got here? Wow–she is right, I am right……….And, yes, she remembers the Bush adminstration NEVER put those wars on the books!!!! Some of us do remember the “tricky” bookkeeping of the past…….Selective memory can be a dangerous thing…..Right now, the Republicans in the House are telling America and the rest of the world that it is okay to default on our debt……..Nice lesson in honor, don’t you think? We ran up these debts and now, we will default on them……….why should anyone respect this country if that is allowed to happen.?…….Shame on anyone who believes this is okay…….this should not be about politics—it’s all about integrity……..And, right now, Mr. Boehner and his buddies are behaving like thugs…….Holding America hostage……

  10. Kathy and menopaws – I could not agree more! Excellent points all.

  11. aislander says:

    Bush DID NOT have control of the House and Senate from 2001 to 2007.

    Tip O’Neill promised President Reagan $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. That promise was never fulfilled, and President Reagan gets the blame from lefties for increasing spending and deficits. Talk about having one’s cake and eating it, too! Create a problem and then blame your opponent for it…

  12. Roncella says:

    Kathy, memopaws,afret, = Yikes !!!

  13. concernedtacoma7 says:

    In the liberal dream years of 91% taxes on the biggest earners fed revenues never exceeded 21% of GDP. Only one year in the last 60 did rev exceed 20% of GDP. We are spending 24% of GDP.

    Get your partisan heads out of the sand, we have a spending problem. I am not against higher taxes for SUPER rich, say 10+mil a year. But $250k hits too many small business owners and the middle class.

    Also, how many women will not seek employment bc their husbands make a figure close the $250k mark. They will aviod employment bc their salary would get taxed at the max rate.

    menopaws- Why do you always post in that annoying fashion? Find the enter button.

    Last, Bush has been out of office for a while now. Whining about the past will not fix our future.

  14. beerBoy says:

    So that means that the Reagan era had irresponsible spending? Bush 1. Bush 2, Ford?

    Add Clinton in there (not so much for spending but for NAFTA, the Fed policies etc.) and YEP!

  15. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Great remarks by Sen Rubio:

    “And here’s the fact: the fact is it doesn’t solve the problem. First of all, if you taxed these people at 100 percent, basically next year you said, ‘Look, every penny you make next year the government’s going to take it from you,’ it still doesn’t solve the debt. Not only does that not solve the debt problem, but I looked at a host of other — a great publication that came out today from the Joint Economics Committee, our colleague Sen. DeMint chairs it. And it kind of outlines some of the tax increases being proposed by our colleagues in the Democratic Party and the president to solve the debt problem. And you add them all up, you add all of these things up — the jet airplanes, the oil companies, all of the other things they talk about — you put them all together in one big batch, and you know what it does? It basically deals with nine days and 23 hours worth of deficit spending. Nine days and 23 hours of deficit spending. That’s how much it solves. So all this talk about going after people that make all this money, it buys you nine days and 23 hours. Let’s round it off. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. It buys them 10 days of deficit spending reduction. That’s what all this stuff rounds up to.

    Whole speech is here http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html

  16. Roncella,
    Bush was the big spender!

    And the major reason for the debt increase under Obama has the cost of Bush’s two unnecessary wars, and the Wall Street Bail Out.

    Islander,
    Bush was President from 2001 to 2009.

    Republicans the House from 1999 till 2009 (106th, 107th, 108th, 109th, and 100th Congresses)

    Republicans controlled the Senate from 1999 to 2001, and again from 2003 to 2007.

    Dems controlled the Senate, by one vote, 2001 to 2003.

    And Regan was the one who said Deficits don’ matter.

    Concerned,
    The major spending problems is with corporate welfare and defense spending – both of which are off the table according to the Speaker of the part time congress.

  17. aislander says:

    God, xring, read what you just wrote and then give me forty pushups and a dozen hail Marys. What a pantload!

  18. Roncella –

    “Kathy, memopaws,afret, = Yikes !!!”

    If you are going to make a point or support other comments than do it. I have never sunk to personal attacks because I think it shows a lack of thought. Come on!

  19. Roncella says:

    afret, After reading their posts my only response is Yikes, thats it.

  20. Islander,
    The truth hurts – so learn to live with it.

  21. concernedtacoma7 says:

    xring- is it right that BHO flies around the country on OUR dime raising money?
    Total up corporate welfare and it is not very significant. Makes great points in speeches, partisan rhetoric put forward by BHO, but not much of an impact. And both sides love to court the big corporations. This is not an issue of one side.

    I think the free market should work.

  22. beerBoy says:

    I think the free market should work.

    but it doesn’t.

  23. Concerned;
    When the President travels on our dime it is for official business.
    When he travels for partisan political reasons the DNC has to pay for it.

    Corporate welfare includes direct subsidies, general and special tax breaks, tax loopholes, and contracts that gurentee the companies make a profit if when they don’t deliver the goods or services.

    And the total is very significant.

    If corporate welfare were not significant:
    Why do corporations spend billions of dollars to defend and expand it? And

    Why do the leaders of the part time house refuse to discuss it?

  24. aislander says:

    The truth MIGHT hurt if I actually encounter it, xring.

    Obama’s addition to the debt FAR exceeds the cost of the wars and TARP (with the exception of the auto bailout, which was Obama’s addition to it) has been almost completely repaid.

    Pelosi became Speaker in January 2008, so Bush has THAT plus Reid’s Senate to deal with for a full year. Not coincidentally, that’s when the deficits, which had been diminishing, began increasing. They REALLY increased, as we all know, with the advent of Obama…

    Clinton was president in 1999, 2000, and most of Jan. 2001, so I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make with that observation…

    Finally, Bush never had veto-proof majorities in the Senate, or even a cohesive majority, with Collins, Snowe, and Specter…

  25. aislander says:

    Correction: Pelosi became Speaker and Reid Majority Leader in Jan. 2008, so Bush was afflicted with them for TWO years. I guess my mind, as a defense mechanism, blotted out a year of congressional misfeasance…

  26. aislander says:

    God, I wish we could edit this BS blog: I was TRYING to type 2007. Sheesh!

  27. beerBoy says:

    The truth MIGHT hurt if I actually encounter it,

    I think, instead of “encounter” what you meant to write was “recognize” or “accept”.

  28. aislander says:

    No, beerBoy: “encounter” is what I meant. Hasn’t happened yet when reading lefty posts, though…

  29. menopaws says:

    I heard some fascinating info today…….Every decade of modern /american history since World War 1 created over 30 million jobs. Until 2001 thru 2007, during which time only 3 million jobs were created…….the lowest record of job growth in modern history for over 100 years….and guess who was in charge? It’s time to wake up and study some facts….We did NOT get in this mess overnight—and anyone who thinks we will climb out of it in 2-3 years is delusional……..Until we raise revenue and start kicking some corporate butt over jobs being shipped overseas while Congress continues to protect those tax breaks–Democrat or Republican–it won’t get better…..blame Bush, blame Obama–doesn’t much matter anymore………Congress refuses to do it’s job and we will all, sadly, pay a terrible price for too much ideology and too little brains.

  30. aislander says:

    Menopaws: The difference was that we had a lot more America and a lot less government. I don’t care who’s in charge, we need to let the people be free…

  31. Islander,
    On July 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM, you said, “Bush DID NOT have control of the House and Senate from 2001 to 2007”

    My post on July 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM proved the above statement was false.

    Then on July 9, 2011 , at 5:17 PM you said “Bush never had veto-proof majorities in the Senate, or even a cohesive majority, with Collins, Snowe, and Specter…

    Between Jan 01 and Dec 08, W. vetoed 12 bills, only 4 of which were overridden. All 4 overrides occurred during the 110th Congress but with such large majorities that most Republicans would have to vote for the override.

    And so once again truth trumps talking points.

  32. xring’s post of 12:34AM tends to demonstrate my point aislander.

  33. Roncella says:

    menopaws, Your most recent post about the general state of the economy and how we got there is one of the best you have ever presented, that I have read.

    The problem thats making Both the Congress and the President less likely to really solved this mess is the Country is heading into election mode.

    Everything loaded in Obama’s tele-prompters by his handlers is totallly political and presented in such a way as to make Obama look good to the voters, again.

    Everything the Republicans present is tailored to the Tea Party and more conservative side of many of the newly elected House Republicans.

    Thats whats making it even more difficult to solve this crises.

  34. stetsonwalker says:

    Wake up and stop dreaming of Bush! It is Obama’s economy and he has made a mess of it. It took Reagan less than 2 years of Carters mess and things showed improvement. Under Obama it has only gotten worse! And he had a democratic congress and house for 2 solid years of it! Democratic pissing away of money and tax and spend DO NOT WORK! They have never worked! They made the “great depression” last for years instead of a few months!

  35. stetsonwalker – wake up and stop dreaming about Reagan

    2 years after Reagan was elected the country was hit by the “Reagan Recession”

  36. Why are these Conservatives so damned ignorant about US History?

  37. Stetson – “Under Obama it has only gotten worse! And he had a democratic congress and house for 2 solid years of it!

    WRONG! Obama had a House majority for 2 years. During said two years, the 111th Congress House members expended enormous amounts of manpower and resources to craft, debate and pass 420 bills.

    The Senate, without a filibuter proof majority (60) ignore the House’s work.

    Now someone please explain to me how I could look that up in less than five minutes and Stetson doesn’t have a clue about it.

  38. aislander says:

    xring: Your statement was that Bush had control of the House and Senate from 2001 to 2007. He did NOT. The Senate was in Democrat hands during some of those six years. I don’t know what you think you proved…

    KARD: Stetson is right. A “democratic congress and house,” may be technically an error (he obviously meant House and Senate), but that is not the same as “veto-proof majority.” Both bodies were controlled by Dems, but perhaps not to the extent that YOU would want them to be…

  39. aislander says:

    …and no, W did not veto enough spending bills, but then he was never conservative enough for me…

  40. Now someone please explain to me how I could look that up in less than five minutes and Stetson doesn’t have a clue about it.

    Because you are godlike?

  41. Islander,
    Looks like we are both having trouble entering numbers.

    Corrected dates are : Republicans the House from 1999 till 2007 (106th, 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses).

    Pelosi became speaker in 2007,, Boehner in 2011.

    Bush was President from 2001 till 2009, when Obama became President.

  42. Roncella says:

    xring, President Obama, V.P Biden, Reid, Pelosi, and the dems. in Congress are directly responsibile for spending trillions of dollars on programs that didn’t work.

    Apparently you want to do the pretzel dance like your buddy Kardnos, in order to make excuses for Obama/Biden/Peolosi/Reid, and the dems. in the Congress.

    aislander, Actually President Obama in so many cases has continued many of President Bushes policies and programs, its hard to figure out why so many libs dems continue to attack President Bush so often on the very programs that their hero President Obama has continued on with, Go Figure……

  43. Roncella,
    “Dems spent trillions”
    By chance have your heard of the ‘do nothing congress’ aka the 110th congress.

    From 2008 till 2010 Republicans in the senate blocked any bill they did not approve of.

    Which included most budget and spending bills.

  44. aislander’s note about Democrats controlling the Senate during “some of those years” is not entirely inaccurate but it it is vague (intentionally?)

    From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving that party a one-seat advantage and changing control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Trent Lott announced on December 20, 2002, that he would not continue as Republican leader in the 108th Congress. William Frist was elected Republican leader on Dec. 23, 2002, and began service on January 7, 2003.

    http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm

    So the Dems – with a one seat advantage – “controlled” the Senate from June 6, 2001- January 7, 2003.

  45. menopaws says:

    Once again we are assigning blame to our party of choice………How about the voters taking a hit here…….We gave Bush his second term, with TWO WARS, both going very badly–no weapons of mass destruction: no Bin Laden—lots of money being spent………..We continued to elect our same Congress people, who never met a lobbyist who couldn’t stuff their wallets……..We expect the economy to just recover–with no pain on our part–no taxes to pay down debt that we allowed to grow, and we blame everyone in Washington……But taking responsibility for these debts–well, it’s the Democrats fault or the Republicans fault–we never seem to plan to share the responsibility ……….It’s easy to whine–e-mail your Congressman–call the White House. Let them know this current argument is dangerous and there will be consequences at the polls……Playing with America’s honor by NOT honoring our debts is NOT okay……Send them all a message. It really doesn’t matter whose fault it is anymore—we are in serious trouble here and need to fix it.

  46. hansgruber says:

    I find it interesting how Kathy blames the debt on the two Bush wars run off the books. The cost of those wars was less than what President Obama’s stimulus bill cost in his first year.
    Including the FY 2008 request of $147 billion, the Bush administration has requested approximately $758 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan http://armscontrolcenter.org/assets/pdfs/bucks_never_stop.pdf
    Obama’s stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War — more than $100 billion (15%) more.
    Just the first two years of Obama’s stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
    Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
    Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
    Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
    The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
    During Bush’s Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/little-known-fact-obama039s-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-iraq-war#ixzz1RnzpzoPA

    Under Bush, the national debt risen $4.899 Trillion ($612 Billion per year)
    Under Obama, $3.717 Trillion ($1.486 Trillion per year)

    Obama is currently borrowing 2.42 times as much as Bush.

  47. SadujTogracse says:

    “Why are these Conservatives so damned ignorant about US History?”

    LMAO!! Talk about pot, kettle, black! This from the person who thought John Adams supported slavery AND that the 79 Iranian hostage incident was the same thing as the Iran-Contra affair!

  48. Roncella says:

    hansgruber, You are exposing the liberals and some dems. to the real world of what has got our Economy in the shambles its at.

    You did it clearly and factually. Thanks for your honest imput.

  49. “This from the person who thought John Adams supported slavery AND that the 79 Iranian hostage incident was the same thing as the Iran-Contra affair!”

    Damned lies, as usual.

    1. My contention is that the founding fathers didn’t abolish slavery. True and factual.

    2. Someone else mistook the hostage affair with Iran-Contra, but that doesn’t stop TheSad from lying and blaming me.

  50. “hansgruber says:
    July 11, 2011 at 7:07 am
    I find it interesting how Kathy blames the debt on the two Bush wars run off the books. The cost of those wars was less than what President Obama’s stimulus bill cost in his first year.

    Another lie.

    http://costofwar.com/en/ $1.2 trillion

    Associated Press – “Last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill is going to be even more expensive — $75 billion more.”

    That would total $862 Billion.

    Hans needs to quit using FOX as his source.

  51. asilander….if the Dems had “control” of the Senate from 2009 to 2011….why didn’t 420 pieces of House legislation get passed by the Senate?

    Simple question.

  52. SadujTogracse says:

    LOL……wiggle, wiggle, wiggle!

  53. “The truth MIGHT hurt if I actually encounter it, xring.”

    What would you know of the truth ailander?

  54. S_T,
    The joke is on you.

    First, by supporting the Constitution ALL THE founding fathers supported the continuance of Slavery.

    Second – the 79 Iran Hostages is part of the Iran-Contra affair.

    Roncella and Hans,
    You both expose the right as hypocrites and liars.

    Iraq war cost $787 billion;

    Afgan War cost $432 billion;

    Total $1,219 billion or $1.22 trillion.

    http://costofwar.com/en/

    The two wars have cost more than 10 times of the Stimulas.

    Plus,

    A large part of the Stimulus was loans, which have been paid back WITH INTREST,

    And;

    Nobody was killed, wounded, or maimed by the stimulus.

  55. SadujTogracse says:

    “Second – the 79 Iran Hostages is part of the Iran-Contra affair.”

    Still going with this are you? Well I guess I can’t make you believe what everyone else in the world already knows. The first transaction in the Iran-Contra affair didn’t occur until 1985. The Boland Amendment that prohibited funding of the Contras wasn’t even passed until 1982. Which is AFTER the ’79 hostages were released.

    And I already covered John Adam’s opposition to slavery as has been clearly documented throughout history. Trying to keep a new nation together was the top priority of the founders.

  56. No S_T, only somnambulant zombies believe your warped revisionist history

  57. SadujTogracse says:

    LOL, MY revisionist history? I can (and have) cited every single one of my claims with factual links. You are just blurting out inane and incorrect statements with nothing to back them up. Keep going though, it is sooooo funny to watch!

  58. aislander says:

    Words mean what libs SAY they mean. Facts aren’t facts unless they support liberal religio-ideology. I can’t believe we’re STILL discussing Iran-Contra…

  59. S_T,
    you have not a single source for your fantasy history.

  60. LarryFine says:

    LOL Kathy ! The democrats were busy “trying to wreck the economy” all thru the Bush presidency and finally succeeded when Nancy and Harry took over… now look at the mess the got us into … kooky.

  61. SadujTogracse says:

    AHHHHH I think I found the problem. xring can’t read!!! So I will use Wiki, xring’s own source, for this….
    First arms sale
    “In July 1985, Israel sent American-made BGM-71 TOW antitank missiles to Iran through an arms dealer named Manucher Ghorbanifar, a friend of Iran’s Prime Minister, Mir-Hossein Mousavi.”

    So if the first arms sale in Iran-Contra didn’t happen until 1985, then how exactly were the hostages that were released in 1981 involved? Time travel?

    Now xring, when you learn how to read go back to your Wiki page and you will not find one mention of the ’79 hostage incident. Then go to your infoplease link and you will not find the word Contra anywhere. You see it’s because they were two separate incidents and not releated whatsoever. And as our tennis fans would say… game, set, match. Debunked using xring’s own sources!

  62. “S_T, you have not a single source for your fantasy history.”

    I guess Sadju doesn’t need one…

    “fantasy history”… wow, xring, what were you thinking…

  63. S_T,
    One cherry picked sentence does not an argument make, or break.

    From infoplease;
    On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan’s inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion and the hostages were freed.

    From wiki;
    President Reagan secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo. While the first actual sale in August 1985, the planning had started long before that.

    Oliver North, one of the central figures in the affair, wrote in a book that “Ronald Reagan knew of and approved a great deal of what went on with both the Iranian initiative and private efforts on behalf of the contras and he received regular, detailed briefings on both.” Mr. North also writes: “I have no doubt that he was told about the use of residuals for the Contras, and that he approved it. Enthusiastically. North’s account is difficult to verify because of the secrecy that still surrounds the scandal.

    Xx98,
    That S_T is a witless wonder of right wing new speak.

  64. The glaring elephant in the room that the nitpickers don’t seem to be willing to address: whether or not the October Surprise actually happened (lack of documentation is the cited reason that Congress did not follow up on it), Iran/Contra is undeniable: how is Ronald Reagan considered a hero to the Right when he sold arms to Iran – an avowed enemy of both the US and Israel?

  65. “Xx98,
    That S_T is a witless wonder of right wing new speak.”

    Ok, I am a little masochistic this AM… being a little drunk helps too… you sucked me in x-man…

    It is your own source dude… done…
    In the upper right corner it also says 1985… done…
    Your own reference above says “While the first actual sale in August 1985, the planning had started long before that.” …how long before that? just because someone says that… be more specific…

    “witless wonder”… have you really stepped back and read your own post in an objective manner.

  66. I actually write better when I am drunk….

    And yes I have reread my posts and am satisfied that I made the point I wanted to make, defended a position I wanted to defend,

    do you have a point and/or a position to defend?

  67. Roncella says:

    aislander, You shouldn’t be surprised that the libs here like talking about the Iran Contra affair, in order to discredit President Reagan.

    After the 4 long, long, long, years of Carter, President Reagan came along and straightened out alot of Carters messes. It did take him a few years, but the Country straightened out nicely and Americans were feeling confident once again.

    The libs/dems still hate the thought of Reagan turning the Russians into pretzels in peace talks and making complete fools of them. We Won the argument and President Reagan even assisted in getting the Berlin Wall torned down.

    Oh yes the libs have alot to dislike about Reagan, no doubt about that.

  68. One shouldn’t be surprised that Roncella want’s to draw attention away from the Iran Contra affair. If his arch enemy, Obama, was caught selling arms to a middle eastern country, people like Roncella would want to string him up.

  69. “If his arch enemy, Obama, was caught selling arms to a middle eastern country, people like Roncella would want to string him up.”

    Does selling arms that end up in the hands of Mexican drug dealers count?

    I don’t need to string him up… just say no to his destructive policies and stave the purse until we can vote him out. (if he and Holder don’t end up in jail before then)

  70. Selling arms to Iran Contra is decidedly different than selling arms that “end up” in the hands of drug dealers, xx98411

  71. “sta(r)ve the purse until we can vote him out.”

    So starving our government has everything to do with who is President.

  72. “Selling arms to Iran Contra is decidedly different than selling arms that “end up” in the hands of drug dealers, xx98411″

    The selling of firearms in the southwest is a program of the US Department of Justice.

    “…end up in the hands of drug dealers” that was one of the objectives of the program.

    Not sure what more you mean by “decidedly different”, if you care to share I am all ears…

  73. “So starving our government has everything to do with who is President.”

    Who is President, nope, not at all…

    “…just say no to his destructive policies and stave the purse until we can vote him out.”

    This is what I wrote… I was referring to the destructive policies that are being considered and implemented.

  74. I thought you meant starve.

    Do you have proof that the intent was to supply the drug cartel with guns?

  75. stave = starve: really? is this really where we are going with that?

    The buyers were agents of the drug dealers, were allowed to buy the arms and then allowed to leave the United States where the ability to follow the arms was severely compromised.

    Allowing the purchase is a common practice and that is not an issue for me.

    The issue is that Obama/Holder allowed the purchase with the intent to let the weapons end up in Mexico in the hopes of catching a bigger fish…. Noble in intent, brain dead in practice.

    Proof – does a Congressional investigation mean anything… the “proof” is pouring in… that is if it can get pass the shredder.

  76. just got an email about “…possible tainting of potential witness testimony…”

    I am wondering who the “Ollie North” is in this fiasco…

  77. Stave is a word pertaining to wooden barrel parts, xx98411, so I mistakenly took it to be a typo thinking that you meant starve, as in starve the beast.

    This must be a tough issue for a second amendment proponent to reconcile. Not to mention that supporting Reagan’s gun deal becomes more difficult for the Right without seeming to contradict itself.

  78. “I did mean starve… you got it… movin’ on….

    I kinda like all of the Bill of Rights, i am not partial to any specific one.

    What is their to reconcile. I never said it was right, I just have issue with revisionist history…

    So that we are clear… the mistake is not selling arms to suspected agents of the drug cartels. That is a standard law enforcement practice, not an issue.

    My issue is who is the rocket scientist that thought letting the purchased weapons cross over the border was a good idea.

    This is not a Second amendment issue. The right to bear arms is not in question here. The competence of this administration is…

  79. Agreed. And I’m saying that if we’re going to chastise Obama, then we must also chastise Reagan.

  80. Reagan has been chastised…. then and from the postings here, now. Again my issue is revisionist history. From the blood and innards I can’t recognize that dead horse anymore…

    The gun runner investigation is ongoing. I hope and now expect that you (and others) will hold Obama, as well as Holder accountable for this aggregious misuse of government power and its misguided attempt at law enforcement.

  81. SadujTogracse says:

    “On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan’s inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention”

    Still not seeing anything about Contras in there. Am I missing it or is it written in invisible ink?

  82. We believe what we want to believe.

  83. LarryFine says:

    We know… you probably still “believe” in “hope and change” and that he “is the one we’ve been waiting for”… kooky.

  84. Funny how the word “we” is lost on some people.

    We’re all in this together.

  85. Maybe it’s that Royal We thingy that trips up people like Larry.

    That we means you concept.

  86. LarryFine says:

    Was I wrong ?

  87. You want to believe that there is no hope, Larry?

  88. LarryFine says:

    Sure I do, just not the “hope” Barry was peddling. Besides, I’m not the type to sit and hope for much of anything. I prefer to make things happen rather than watch or wonder what happened.

  89. LarryFine says:

    Do you still believe he “is the one we’ve been waiting for” ?

  90. I’ve never sad that I believed that Obama is the one we’ve been waiting for. That’s the Right’s concoction. Sort of like Saint Ronnie.

    He was the better of the two from which we had to choose, and I hope he ends up doing a better job than the previous President.

    The economy isn’t improving as fast as I’d like but our jobs are still in China, so I don’t see any improvement until we fix that.

  91. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8

    a blast from the past is a terrible thing to waste… seems so “right” about now… enjoy

  92. LarryFine says:

    “concoction’? LMAO… you guys are pathetic.

  93. Larry – Just as I don’t consider madmike, aislander, or even you as the final example of conservative think, one quote from one person identified as Left doesn’t mean all of us feel or felt that way.

  94. LarryFine says:

    Good, now start living by your own obsevation… ;)

  95. LarryFine says:

    … and acknowledge that “the one we’ve been waiting for” comment is NOT a concoction of the right.

    Oh, and so now YOU are carrying Polago’s water… hypocrite.

  96. Xx98,
    When one is drunk everything looks good.

    ‘Selling arms to Mexico’ Is there a current arms embargo against Mexico?

    ‘destructive policies’ and what would those be?

    ‘who is Ollie North’ – you would know had you read my Wiki post.

    S_T,
    It was the first arms sell to Iran, and set up the conditions for the later sells to support the Contra’s.

    Polago ‘”Obama is the one” is a concoction of the right”

    And

    Xx98 posts a tube vid from JohnMcMaindotcom.

    Now that’s kooky.

  97. When one is drunk everything looks good.

    It was 7:00 in the morning, please tell me you didn’t take me seriously? I have some class… now I am drunk but then again it’s 9:30 in the evening… I believe that is a socially accepted time to imbibe?

    ‘Selling arms to Mexico’ Is there a current arms embargo against Mexico?

    “Does selling arms that end up in the hands of Mexican drug dealers count?” This is what I wrote. They are illegal sales… please, you are not that dense.

    Issa and Grassly are too busy making the Obama administration squirm, once the Dems stop playing duck, cover and CYA there will be Soros approved talking points.

    ‘destructive policies’ and what would those be?

    Read the TNT board, the list is endless – threat of taxes, excess regulation, Obamacare (waivers)… stop please you know what we are referring to.

    ‘who is Ollie North’ – you would know had you read my Wiki post.

    “I am wondering who the “Ollie North” is in this fiasco..” that is what I wrote… quote me correctly or not at all.

  98. I googled it – didn’t find “the one we have been waiting for”. Based upon your post I assumed that it was something someone said about Obama – seems like that was an inaccurate assumption.

    Did find “we are the ones we have been waiting for” as part of an Obama speech. Not sure why that is a bad thing – basically saying that we need to do it ourselves…..isn’t that kind of the whole Republican self-help mantra?

    btw – it seems Obama’s speech writers took the line from the title of an Alice Walker book.

  99. John McCain pointed to Obama and called him “That One” during a debate.

  100. aislander says:

    I think “That one” was as precise a description as we could have for someone who was completely not vetted…

  101. I had a feeling that you would be able to somehow find justification for that remark, aislander. That may have been one of the turning points in McCain’s bid for the Whitehouse.

  102. aislander says:

    The turning point occurred in September of 2008, when the economy began to tank. I think McCain/Palin held a slight lead at that point…

  103. You were very close, aislander. That remark occurred on October 7th 2008. This is when the country found out that McCain didn’t have what it takes to confront his opposition.

  104. And I thought the turning point was when McCain took some Viagra right before interviewing an unknown prospect for VP…….

  105. LarryFine says:

    Is that a joke bB??? or are you projecting again ?

  106. I must admit that I stole that line from a youtube video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IzNPEGWNos

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0