Comments Posted By IanY77
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 15 Comments
WHY IS THE PRESIDENT GOING TO COPENHAGEN TO LOBBY FOR THE OLYMPICS?
Maybe this all just political payback. Or maybe this is just the head of state trying to use the prestige of their office to land a major event.
Speaking for myself, if Bush had flown off to Copenhagen to get the Olympics for, say, Houston, I can't say that I'd be upset. It's not like he's using the public money for partisan gain. There's a lot of things I dislike Bush for, but that would have been waaaaaay down the list.
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 28.09.2009 @ 12:59
NO WONDER BUSH WAS A FAILURE AS PRESIDENT
Lionheart:
I'm sorry, but for the last 30 years, can you point to one Republican president and say that he was a fiscal conservative? You guys can claim that fiscal responsibility is the exclusive domain of the right, but until you prove it, and stand up to your people (in real time, not in hindsight), those claims are just words.
Political movements are defined by how they are implemented, not how their adherents would want them to be seen. Communist die-hards claim that "real" communism has never been tried. Regardless, the totalitarian communist governments of the past 100 years define communism. Likewise, American conservatism has been defined for the last 30 years by fiscal irresponsibility. You guys can claim that you stood up to W on his spending, but we never saw it. If you guys had worked up 1/1000th the outrage over W's spending that you did over, say, Scott Beauchamp or Harriet Meirs (sp?) or the immigration bill, then you'd have a leg to stand on.
Until you guys walk the walk, the only fiscally responsible president we’ve had in the last 30 years was a Dem.
(And don’t try to claim the Republican Congress held him in check. The moment Clinton was gone, the finances went to hell again)
You will get no argument from me. Reagan had a cow over Carter's $100 million deficit and then tripled down on that. Bush 41 was doing fairly well until the recession. And Bush 43 never gave a damn.
It's no accident that we had a balanced budget during Clinton years. Not due to GOP congress but because of the massive amounts of wealth being created - largely due to GOP policies of the 1980's. Drove tax revenues into the stratosphere (conversely, please do not argue that Clinton had anything to do with the dot com boom or the renaissance of the entrepreneur.) The surge in wealth creation started before any of his policies could possibly have affected anything. He was smart enough not to get in the way.
Also conversely, any claim Dems had to fiscal responsibility went out the window with Obama. You can argue recession all you want but we didn't need an $800 billion stim bill, nor 8,000 earmarks in the supplemental, or the rest to come.I will admit neither party cares about the long term and that's why we run at a deficit.
ed.
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 15.09.2009 @ 12:54
PREPARE FOR ARMAGEDDON ON HEALTH CARE REFORM
Comrade Stuck:
Rick's analysis only makes sense if he's been in a coma for the last 9 years.
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 19.08.2009 @ 10:59
DID SARAH PALIN JUST PWN THE MEDIA WITH DIVORCE RUMORS?
Renegade hockey mom? That's the person to lead you back from the wilderness? Dear God.
Yes. Please place all of your faith in her, Republicans. Send all of the money you were planning to donate to capable candidates to SarahPAC or JoesixPAC or whatever she calls it.
You guys didn't learn a single thing from the Bush years, did you?
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 2.08.2009 @ 16:29
BLOWHARD NEW YORK TIMES CONTRIBUTOR A PARANOID LOON
"Calling Michelle Bachman a conservative “leader” tells you right away this fellow has as much business writing an op-ed about conservatives as my pet cat Snowball. And at least Snowy would have enough character and honesty to actually peruse top conservative websites and writings instead of cherry picking blog posts from Think Progress or Crooks and Liars."
From Powerline: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is one of Minnesota's most effective spokesmen for conservatism, so our local media have collaborated with Democrats in trying to defeat her. The most recent attack on Michele arose out of my radio show last Saturday.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023152.php
All of 5 seconds on Google.
Five seconds off your life for no reason.
What the hell does that prove? That she's a popular conservative in Minnesota. MINNESOTA!! Are you shitting me? And I've got news for ya. The only notice given Bachman is when she makes some off the wall statement and its picked up by lefty media. Anything reasonable or rational she ever says never makes it beyond the Minnesota-Wisconsin border.
Some "conserative leader."
ed.
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 4.04.2009 @ 11:36
See Rick, your Liberal Derangement Syndrome is really showing. Not once in my comment did the word "Bush" ever show up. At all. But keep hitting that strawman. What I asked was: You said that a hypothetical president Obama would get beaten down like a little bitch by the world's bad guys. What could a hypothetical McCain credibly do differently? You ignored the question completely, and fell back on your only competency: Liberal bashing. Typical. You guys can barely stomach McCain, so you just try to tear down the other guy. Maybe McCain tell the Russians and Georgians to "Sit down and cut the *****That was his Middle East plan. Why couldn't it work now?
Jesus, watching conservative bloggers play political commentator is like watching a five year old sitting on his dad's Harley yelling "Vroom! Vroom!".
I tear down Obama because he is a neophyte - an empty suit whose sensibilities and instincts scream appeasement.
And when you start making as much as I do for political commentary, you can belittle me all you want. Until then, I'm smiling all the way to the bank. Which grocery store are you bagging for these days?
ed.
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 11.08.2008 @ 13:36
OK, so you say that Obama is a ginormous pussy faggot bitch who will get sodomized by all of the big bad men out there. Tell us then, what McCain will do. Realistically.
The military isn't an option. You said yourself that Putin will sneer at any economic sanctions that the West throws their way. So what will Big Bad John do that the limp-writed faggot Obama won't?
Bill Kristol made the same mistake you did in the NYT (damn liberal media). "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! I have nothing to offer as a solution to this crisis, but liberals suck". Gee, thanks. I'm sure glad the blogosphere offers such a great alternative to the MSM.
Obama, like McCain, would take the matter before the UN - exactly what we're doing now - which would yeild exactly the same results; nothing.
Are you really serious when you posit that Obama's pussyfooting statement on Friday - a statement he had to hastily revise because he GOT IT WRONG by being too passive and didn't condemn Russian aggression - would cause Putin to do anything except snort in derision? And while there is nothing that can be done now, I would expect McCain's after invasion response to be more telling than any weasel words Obama would come up with. He's already proven he doesn't have the stomach to call Putin a aggressor. What other nuggets of rhetoric can we expect from The One as he seeks to placate and appease rather than confront Putin?
Besides, my main gripe was with idiots like you who blame the whole thing on Bush - which is a big reason why Obama is only 3 points ahead instead of 20. The American people don't trust liberals on foreign policy and defense - period. When you stop coddling the Castros and Chavez's of the world, that may change. Until then, you and your buddy Obama are going to be suspect in the eyes of anyone with half a brain and is concerned with American interests.
ed.
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 11.08.2008 @ 12:03
WAS THERE AN OBAMA-DALEY DEAL ON THE PRESIDENCY?
"Compassionate conservative", "humble foreign policy", "restore honor and dignity to the White House". Yep, politicians always tell the truth on the way to the White House.
As for the endorsement, have you entertained the possibility that Daley endorsed Obama because Obama is from the same city and state as Daley? Would it not be a shock if Daley didn't endorse Obama, much like it would have been a shock if Eliot Spitzer hadn't endorsed Clinton? Occam's Razor and all that?
The shocker isn't that Daley endorsed Obama but that Mr. Clean Obama endorsed the corrupt Daley at the expense of a reform candidate. Wouldn't be surprised if the Tillman endorsement wasn't part of the deal too.
Ed.
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 10.03.2008 @ 08:56
THE DEBATE OF ALMOST, MOSTLY, REPUBLICANS
Wasting time responding to someone who actually thinks Republicans play the class warfare card when it has been the modus operandi for Democrats since FDR would be absurd.
Just because the Dems do something doesn't mean that the Repubs don't as well. It takes two to fight a class war, and it's not like the upper class doesn't have any guns to bear.
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 31.01.2008 @ 17:05
WHO ARE YOU CALLING A LIBERAL?
Matt Stoller is one individual inside of a much, much larger movement.
No one statement can flawlessly categorize a movement made up of hundreds of millions of people worldwide (aside from carbon-based, bipedal life forms requiring oxygen to survive). Hence the "broad brush" remark. In general, our focus is on people, in general, your focus is on the ideology of your political enemies.
Comment Posted By IanY77 On 24.01.2008 @ 12:16
