Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 15-ON.html

Republicans are honing an attack line against President Barack Obama in an attempt to play on Americans' fears of government overreach and economic uncertainties, suggesting he is nationalizing American industry and socializing medicine.

Government meddling in the private sector is "a bridge to socialism," asserts Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. "It's time to get the government out of the bailout business once and for all," says House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

THIS is where the hypocrisy coms in:

No matter that the bailouts and nationalizations were begun under the Republican administration of George W. Bush.

Jesus, I hate politicians.

Conks are creating more misery that will only backfire on their backward, hatin' asses. People are tired of their shit and they ain't figgered it out yet.

Keep a-yappin', deluded Reaganite fux.

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 15-ON.html

Republicans are honing an attack line against President Barack Obama in an attempt to play on Americans' fears of government overreach and economic uncertainties, suggesting he is nationalizing American industry and socializing medicine.

Government meddling in the private sector is "a bridge to socialism," asserts Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. "It's time to get the government out of the bailout business once and for all," says House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

THIS is where the hypocrisy coms in:

No matter that the bailouts and nationalizations were begun under the Republican administration of George W. Bush.

Jesus, I hate politicians.

No big deal, nobody listens to Republicans anymore. It will be a good five years before anyone can even begin stomach their drivel again. Now if they can wrest control of their party from the wackjob ideologues and find a Republican like TR, I'm all ears. And Newt ain't the one.

Republican insistence on old values will alienate voters for decades to come. It's 2009, Palinites.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Conks are creating more misery that will only backfire on their backward, hatin' asses. People are tired of their shit and they ain't figgered it out yet.

Keep a-yappin', deluded Reaganite fux.

Nice picture of Z. Was this taken after the Eastern Washington game?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Conks are creating more misery that will only backfire on their backward, hatin' asses. People are tired of their **** and they ain't figgered it out yet.

Keep a-yappin', deluded Reaganite fux.

Where did you get that picture? It's funny because it's true.

I am with the few and proud GOP members that stood up against all of Bush's bailouts in his final months in office. Boy had the GOP united against Bush and the bailouts, I bet the election would have been a lot closer.

guinzone wrote:I am with the few and proud GOP members that stood up against all of Bush's bailouts in his final months in office. Boy had the GOP united against Bush and the bailouts, I bet the election would have been a lot closer.

spoken like a guy whose finger was a long way from the pulse of the electorate.

i was working the campaign against Michele Bachmann... so not a liberal district by any stretch... you know what our polling told us??? the public supported the bailout. they didn't like it... but they liked the idea of doing nothing even less.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

guinzone wrote:I am with the few and proud GOP members that stood up against all of Bush's bailouts in his final months in office. Boy had the GOP united against Bush and the bailouts, I bet the election would have been a lot closer.

spoken like a guy whose finger was a long way from the pulse of the electorate.

i was working the campaign against Michele Bachmann... so not a liberal district by any stretch... you know what our polling told us??? the public supported the bailout. they didn't like it... but they liked the idea of doing nothing even less.

Kinda similar to what the polling data would have been about going in to Iraq wouldn't it be?

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
spoken like a guy whose finger was a long way from the pulse of the electorate.

i was working the campaign against Michele Bachmann... so not a liberal district by any stretch... you know what our polling told us??? the public supported the bailout. they didn't like it... but they liked the idea of doing nothing even less.

Kinda similar to what the polling data would have been about going in to Iraq wouldn't it be?

my statement has nothing to do with it being right or wrong... guinny stated that the GOPers would have done better at the ballot box had they opposed bailouts... fact is... they wouldn't have... it would have likely been worse. again, this is not a value statement one way or another, but a reflection of the political reality that existed at the time.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Kinda similar to what the polling data would have been about going in to Iraq wouldn't it be?

my statement has nothing to do with it being right or wrong... guinny stated that the GOPers would have done better at the ballot box had they opposed bailouts... fact is... they wouldn't have... it would have likely been worse. again, this is not a value statement one way or another, but a reflection of the political reality that existed at the time.

Ahhh, I see what you meant now. I was actually thinking that reading Guin's post but the split seemed closer than that when it happened. Must've got that feeling from reading the boards cuz it was a lot closer to 50/50 with the posters on here and AGS. Of course, I didn't poll anyone so I could be wrong on that one.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
my statement has nothing to do with it being right or wrong... guinny stated that the GOPers would have done better at the ballot box had they opposed bailouts... fact is... they wouldn't have... it would have likely been worse. again, this is not a value statement one way or another, but a reflection of the political reality that existed at the time.

Ahhh, I see what you meant now. I was actually thinking that reading Guin's post but the split seemed closer than that when it happened. Must've got that feeling from reading the boards cuz it was a lot closer to 50/50 with the posters on here and AGS. Of course, I didn't poll anyone so I could be wrong on that one.

the opponents were a lot louder than the supporters.

our polling in a pretty conservative district (GOP held a 7 point edge, which is a pretty decent lead) showed that the bailout package had the support of about 65% of our district. Most people seemed to fall in to the "necessary evil" or "I'm not happy about it, but it makes more sense than not acting" camp

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
my statement has nothing to do with it being right or wrong... guinny stated that the GOPers would have done better at the ballot box had they opposed bailouts... fact is... they wouldn't have... it would have likely been worse. again, this is not a value statement one way or another, but a reflection of the political reality that existed at the time.

Ahhh, I see what you meant now. I was actually thinking that reading Guin's post but the split seemed closer than that when it happened. Must've got that feeling from reading the boards cuz it was a lot closer to 50/50 with the posters on here and AGS. Of course, I didn't poll anyone so I could be wrong on that one.

Those polls include only the people that answer the polls. Some like me, non-partisan, my wife Democrat tell them we are not interested and hangup. I wonder if there is a poll about political leanings of people that don't participate in polls.

Gil Dobie wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Ahhh, I see what you meant now. I was actually thinking that reading Guin's post but the split seemed closer than that when it happened. Must've got that feeling from reading the boards cuz it was a lot closer to 50/50 with the posters on here and AGS. Of course, I didn't poll anyone so I could be wrong on that one.

Those polls include only the people that answer the polls. Some like me, non-partisan, my wife Democrat tell them we are not interested and hangup. I wonder if there is a poll about political leanings of people that don't participate in polls.

statistically speaking, our polling data is remarkably accurate for people who vote. I took a couple of classes on polling and polling methods, and you can adjust for the stuff you and Mrs. Dobie do. and if you ask questions properly, you'll get a very accurate result (which you should considering how much you pay the f'ing pollsters)

as for the opinions of people who don't vote... i don't give a flying fuck, their opinions literally dont matter or count.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:statistically speaking, our polling data is remarkably accurate for people who vote. I took a couple of classes on polling and polling methods, and you can adjust for the stuff you and Mrs. Dobie do. and if you ask questions properly, you'll get a very accurate result (which you should considering how much you pay the f'ing pollsters)

as for the opinions of people who don't vote... i don't give a flying ****, their opinions literally dont matter or count.

We both vote

If I'm not busy, which isn't very often, because they usually call during dinner hour and I'm the cook, I may answer, but my wife doesn't like to participate in them at all.

Let's be clear in assigning responsibility to the different components of our economic problems:

Bush:
1. Iraq War
2. New prescription medicine entitlement
3. Lax regulatory environment (tho that predated him)

Both Parties:
1. Sub-Prime mortgages
2. Earmarks (small, but significant)
3. Continued deferral on looming SSN/Medicare meltdowns
4. Encouraging increased T-Bill sales to marginal allies (e.g., China)
5. Stimulus/Bail-outs

Obama:
1. Radically increased budget size
2. Universal health-care
3. Govt take-over of (or at least significant impact on) GM and banks
4. Enhanced environmental legistation/enforcement (carbon cap and trade, fleet mpg increases, etc.)

Forget about Bush - he's long gone. Republicans have a couple talking heads and a ditsy MILF and that's it. Obama has political capital and congressional (super?) majorities to enact his agenda. Really all credit and blame for our economy belong to him going forward.

And the Republicans absolutely have to shine a harsh light on these trillion dollar deficits, which will dwarf Bush's deficits - if they don't who will? Democrats? C'mon...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Ahhh, I see what you meant now. I was actually thinking that reading Guin's post but the split seemed closer than that when it happened. Must've got that feeling from reading the boards cuz it was a lot closer to 50/50 with the posters on here and AGS. Of course, I didn't poll anyone so I could be wrong on that one.

the opponents were a lot louder than the supporters.

our polling in a pretty conservative district (GOP held a 7 point edge, which is a pretty decent lead) showed that the bailout package had the support of about 65% of our district. Most people seemed to fall in to the "necessary evil" or "I'm not happy about it, but it makes more sense than not acting" camp

My memory supports this, most people supported the bailouts as a necessary evil at the time. I would be interested in any data regarding peoples' opinions of the bailouts as written and being executed. My guess is that people would be disappointed.

UNI88 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
the opponents were a lot louder than the supporters.

our polling in a pretty conservative district (GOP held a 7 point edge, which is a pretty decent lead) showed that the bailout package had the support of about 65% of our district. Most people seemed to fall in to the "necessary evil" or "I'm not happy about it, but it makes more sense than not acting" camp

My memory supports this, most people supported the bailouts as a necessary evil at the time. I would be interested in any data regarding peoples' opinions of the bailouts as written and being executed. My guess is that people would be disappointed.

my guess is that most americans have no patience, and are inclined to be cynical about everything... just saying.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

guinzone wrote:I am with the few and proud GOP members that stood up against all of Bush's bailouts in his final months in office. Boy had the GOP united against Bush and the bailouts, I bet the election would have been a lot closer.

spoken like a guy whose finger was a long way from the pulse of the electorate.

i was working the campaign against Michele Bachmann... so not a liberal district by any stretch... you know what our polling told us??? the public supported the bailout. they didn't like it... but they liked the idea of doing nothing even less.

You may be right, and you're a smart guy so I'm sure you are. What are your thoughts on why people supported the bailout? I know this could open a can of worms, but just curious.

I, myself think the administration(s) made a great media onslaught essentially giving Americans a false choice of "do this and only this" and save the country or "do nothing (or nothing else)" and the country will fail. The media bought in to it, Americans are often times glad to be spoon fed, and thus a majority of people ended up with the understanding of, "I don't like it, but something HAS to be done." To me, it was a sham, much like the lead up to the Iraq war. Unfortunately, both will harm future generations more.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
spoken like a guy whose finger was a long way from the pulse of the electorate.

i was working the campaign against Michele Bachmann... so not a liberal district by any stretch... you know what our polling told us??? the public supported the bailout. they didn't like it... but they liked the idea of doing nothing even less.

You may be right, and you're a smart guy so I'm sure you are. What are your thoughts on why people supported the bailout? I know this could open a can of worms, but just curious.

I, myself think the administration(s) made a great media onslaught essentially giving Americans a false choice of "do this and only this" and save the country or "do nothing (or nothing else)" and the country will fail. The media bought in to it, Americans are often times glad to be spoon fed, and thus a majority of people ended up with the understanding of, "I don't like it, but something HAS to be done." To me, it was a sham, much like the lead up to the Iraq war. Unfortunately, both will harm future generations more.

IMO, people saw the economy going into the shitter and wanted the government to do something, anything to try and fix it. People who lost their jobs, were worried about losing their jobs, saw their retirement accounts lose 1/3 of their value, etc. were desperate. It was a perfect opportunity for Obama and he and Congress took advantage of it.

TTBF might be right about people being impatient and cynical or people might be less than enamored with the actual stimulus plan because it was more pork than true stimulus and investment in the future.

I think people saw the economy entering in to free-fall, I think they realized that if the entire banking sector failed that it WOULD domino in to the rest of the economy and plunge us in to a 1929 scenario, and basically supported a "stop the presses" answer... (if you've ever actually watched them "stop the presses" it's a mess, but it's designed to prevent a bigger mess...)

Voters have moments of being incredibly strategic, and quite adept at analyzing a situation as a group. I think the bailout is an example of that... they also have moments of being completely irrational fucks... like expecting a complete economic recovery in 8 months... or being able to have everything and pay no taxes...

i disagree that it was some sort of cynical plot... esp, since the bailout was passed in October... before Obama took office. I think the public is pissy about it because they want it all better yesterday...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I think people saw the economy entering in to free-fall, I think they realized that if the entire banking sector failed that it WOULD domino in to the rest of the economy and plunge us in to a 1929 scenario, and basically supported a "stop the presses" answer... (if you've ever actually watched them "stop the presses" it's a mess, but it's designed to prevent a bigger mess...)

Voters have moments of being incredibly strategic, and quite adept at analyzing a situation as a group. I think the bailout is an example of that... they also have moments of being completely irrational ****... like expecting a complete economic recovery in 8 months... or being able to have everything and pay no taxes...

i disagree that it was some sort of cynical plot... esp, since the bailout was passed in October... before Obama took office. I think the public is pissy about it because they want it all better yesterday...

The cynical plot, in my mind, comes from pushing this one and only plan and that it must pass immediately. No one was willing to step back, take a little longer, and really work on finding the best option. That was my argument then, how it was presented as a "do now or we lose." And, I didn't mention Obama.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:i disagree that it was some sort of cynical plot... esp, since the bailout was passed in October... before Obama took office. I think the public is pissy about it because they want it all better yesterday...

Are we talking about the bailout, the stimulus, or both?

UNI88 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:i disagree that it was some sort of cynical plot... esp, since the bailout was passed in October... before Obama took office. I think the public is pissy about it because they want it all better yesterday...

Are we talking about the bailout, the stimulus, or both?

i was talking about the bailout