PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama tells a flat out lie....


petegz28
02-01-2010, 10:35 AM
Says he inhertied a $1.3 tril deficit.

Also, blames the previous Admin. for the drug care program and record spending.

If one looks at the facts, the spending increased significantly starting in 2007. Who controlled Congress in 2007, 2008 and 2009?

Secondly the Drug program was supported by Dems.

Thirdly I believe Obama himself voted for all of the spending.

dirk digler
02-01-2010, 10:55 AM
Says he inhertied a $1.3 tril deficit.

Also, blames the previous Admin. for the drug care program and record spending.

If one looks at the facts, the spending increased significantly starting in 2007. Who controlled Congress in 2007, 2008 and 2009?

Secondly the Drug program was supported by Dems.

Thirdly I believe Obama himself voted for all of the spending.

You are silly pete. Bush was the POTUS, he had to sign the bills so ultimately he is responsible.

You need to look at the facts. Bush didn't veto 1 bill from 2000-2006. He vetoed 10 bills from 2007 until he left office and only 2 were over-ridden.

Also the $1.2 trillion dollar Medicare bill was in 2003 and 90% of Dems opposed it and 90% of Republicans supported it. The Bush administration had to threaten Rick Foster with his job, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, not to tell what the true costs were for this bill so it would get passed.

petegz28
02-01-2010, 10:57 AM
You are silly pete. Bush was the POTUS, he had to sign the bills so ultimately he is responsible.

You need to look at the facts. Bush didn't veto 1 bill from 2000-2006. He vetoed 10 bills from 2007 until he left office and only 2 were over-ridden.

Also the $1.2 trillion dollar Medicare bill was in 2003 and 90% of Dems opposed it and 90% of Republicans supported it. The Bush administration had to threaten Rick Foster with his job, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, not to tell what the true costs were for this bill so it would get passed.

Congress approves the spending. Sorry. 90% of Dems opposed it? Bullshit.

petegz28
02-01-2010, 11:02 AM
BTW, the deficit was well under $1 tril when Obama took office.

dirk digler
02-01-2010, 11:05 AM
Congress approves the spending. Sorry. 90% of Dems opposed it? Bullshit.

Who has to sign the bill?

And yes Dems opposed it. Sorry 88% :rolleyes:

House Dems 189 No 18 Yes

Senate Dems 35 No 11 Yes

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2003-459

petegz28
02-01-2010, 11:07 AM
Who has to sign the bill?

And yes Dems opposed it. Sorry 88% :rolleyes:

House Dems 189 No 18 Yes

Senate Dems 35 No 11 Yes

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2003-459


But why did they oppose it? Because it wasn't big enough, maybe??? :shake:

petegz28
02-01-2010, 11:09 AM
I borrowed this from another thread....

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

Now how did he inherit a $1.3 tril deficit??? Looks to me it was just over $400 bil

dirk digler
02-01-2010, 11:11 AM
But why did they oppose it? Because it wasn't big enough, maybe??? :shake:

Because it was a stupid bill. It has been rated as the worst bill in Congressional history.

petegz28
02-01-2010, 11:13 AM
Because it was a stupid bill. It has been rated as the worst bill in Congressional history.

I won't argue that it was stupid, but that isn't the point. And that does not jusitfy his lying about inheriting a $1.3 tril deficit. It wasn't even close to that.

dirk digler
02-01-2010, 11:15 AM
BTW, the deficit was well under $1 tril when Obama took office.

No it wasn't. Here is a story from Jan 7 the CBO says the deficit will be $1.2 trillion in 2009. This is before Obama has taken office mind you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08deficit.html

petegz28
02-01-2010, 11:16 AM
No it wasn't. Here is a story from Jan 7 the CBO says the deficit will be $1.2 trillion in 2009. This is before Obama has taken office mind you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08deficit.html

Ok, the graph lies....his almost $1 tril porkulus bill had nothing to do with anything, right?

KC Dan
02-01-2010, 11:18 AM
No it wasn't. Here is a story from Jan 7 the CBO says the deficit will be $1.2 trillion in 2009. This is before Obama has taken office mind you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08deficit.html
don't disagree with you but where does the TARP paybacks enter into this equation of 2009 deficit. If some or most paid it back wouldn't the and shouldn't the deficit in 2009 been much smaller? Wait, we are using it as a slush fund now so the deficit hasn't decreased...

petegz28
02-01-2010, 11:21 AM
don't disagree with you but where does the TARP paybacks enter into this equation of 2009 deficit. If some or most paid it back wouldn't the and shouldn't the deficit in 2009 been much smaller? Wait, we are using it as a slush fund now so the deficit hasn't decreased...

You mean the TARP he took credit for in the SOTU?

BigRedChief
02-01-2010, 11:25 AM
Congress approves the spending. Sorry. 90% of Dems opposed it? Bullshit.again, fact check before you call BS. Yes, it was 88% not 90% but, the point still stands. The vast majority of Democrats were the only ones yelling about unfunded bills. That this was a good idea,, but lets pay for it. Bush wanted to borrow the money from the chinese to pay for it. The facts are the Republicans spent like drunken sailors under Bush and are just hypocrites calling for finanicial restraint now.

Chief Faithful
02-01-2010, 11:38 AM
again, fact check before you call BS. Yes, it was 88% not 90% but, the point still stands. The vast majority of Democrats were the only ones yelling about unfunded bills. That this was a good idea,, but lets pay for it. Bush wanted to borrow the money from the chinese to pay for it. The facts are the Republicans spent like drunken sailors under Bush and are just hypocrites calling for finanicial restraint now.

I guess this is one case where it is good for the country to be called hypocritical.

petegz28
02-01-2010, 11:39 AM
again, fact check before you call BS. Yes, it was 88% not 90% but, the point still stands. The vast majority of Democrats were the only ones yelling about unfunded bills. That this was a good idea,, but lets pay for it. Bush wanted to borrow the money from the chinese to pay for it. The facts are the Republicans spent like drunken sailors under Bush and are just hypocrites calling for finanicial restraint now.

I am not arguin what Bush did. The Dems wanted more. That being said,the fact is Obama was handed a deficit between $400-$800 bil. Not the $1.3 tril he is trying to claim.

petegz28
02-01-2010, 11:51 AM
The fact is, the plan the Democrats wanted as opposed to the PD program, would have cost even more. Go figure.

dirk digler
02-01-2010, 12:06 PM
Ok, the graph lies....his almost $1 tril porkulus bill had nothing to do with anything, right?

The CBO projected on Jan 7, 2009 the deficit would be $1.2 trillion so that was before the stimilus bill.

No one is saying Obama hasn't added to the deficit but what he said is 100% true.

dirk digler
02-01-2010, 12:07 PM
don't disagree with you but where does the TARP paybacks enter into this equation of 2009 deficit. If some or most paid it back wouldn't the and shouldn't the deficit in 2009 been much smaller? Wait, we are using it as a slush fund now so the deficit hasn't decreased...

Honestly I have no idea and I think that is a legit question.

KC Dan
02-01-2010, 12:10 PM
Honestly I have no idea and I think that is a legit question.It really doesn't matter because the money IS part of the 2009 deficit as they ARE continuing to use the paybacks as slush fund money. They didn't want to credit our deficit the payback because then the $1.3 Trillion would have been less than $1 Trillion making the 2010/2011 budget deficits look as horrible as they really are. And, they don't have pocket change at their disposal without congressional approval.

Royal Fanatic
02-01-2010, 12:20 PM
No it wasn't. Here is a story from Jan 7 the CBO says the deficit will be $1.2 trillion in 2009. This is before Obama has taken office mind you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08deficit.html

Who was President in 2009?

Calcountry
02-01-2010, 12:21 PM
You are silly pete. Bush was the POTUS, he had to sign the bills so ultimately he is responsible.

You need to look at the facts. Bush didn't veto 1 bill from 2000-2006. He vetoed 10 bills from 2007 until he left office and only 2 were over-ridden.

Also the $1.2 trillion dollar Medicare bill was in 2003 and 90% of Dems opposed it and 90% of Republicans supported it. The Bush administration had to threaten Rick Foster with his job, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, not to tell what the true costs were for this bill so it would get passed.So, one plus year into office, just WHO is responsible for the shit sandwich we are eating now? By your logic, it would be Bush?

petegz28
02-01-2010, 12:25 PM
The Left Wing Logic on deficits:

From 2007-2008 though the democratic Congress approved and surely added to the spending, Bush didn't veto so therefore all the spending = Bush's fault

In 2009 the Democratic Congress still approved spending only it wasn't Obama's fault though Obama didn't veto any of it. The spending still = Bush's fault.

dirk digler
02-01-2010, 12:27 PM
It really doesn't matter because the money IS part of the 2009 deficit as they ARE continuing to use the paybacks as slush fund money. They didn't want to credit our deficit the payback because then the $1.3 Trillion would have been less than $1 Trillion making the 2010/2011 budget deficits look as horrible as they really are. And, they don't have pocket change at their disposal without congressional approval.

Just doing some quick reading I don't think they know what they are going to do yet with that money. Some of it is probably going to go in a jobs bill

petegz28
02-01-2010, 12:29 PM
Just doing some quick reading I don't think they know what they are going to do yet with that money. Some of it is probably going to go in a jobs bill

They know they are going to spend it. I think we can agree on that.

donkhater
02-01-2010, 12:34 PM
....and water is wet.

End of thread.

headsnap
02-01-2010, 12:36 PM
Some of it is probably going to go in a jobs bill

and the check IS in the mail... ROFL

mlyonsd
02-01-2010, 12:39 PM
Just doing some quick reading I don't think they know what they are going to do yet with that money. Some of it is probably going to go in a jobs bill

WTF was the $787 billion all dem stimulus bill from last year for?

dirk digler
02-01-2010, 12:42 PM
They know they are going to spend it. I think we can agree on that.

no question about it. He said they would in the SOTU

patteeu
02-01-2010, 12:56 PM
You are silly pete. Bush was the POTUS, he had to sign the bills so ultimately he is responsible.

You need to look at the facts. Bush didn't veto 1 bill from 2000-2006. He vetoed 10 bills from 2007 until he left office and only 2 were over-ridden.

Also the $1.2 trillion dollar Medicare bill was in 2003 and 90% of Dems opposed it and 90% of Republicans supported it. The Bush administration had to threaten Rick Foster with his job, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, not to tell what the true costs were for this bill so it would get passed.

You have no business lecturing petegz28 when you're trying to pass off BS like the idea that democrats opposed prescription drug spending. The democrats who opposed Bush's prescription drug program did so because they wanted an EVEN BIGGER one with more extensive coverage. You can't pretend that they were against the spending that took place when they would have spent even more.

There are only two kinds of Obama supporters at this point: those who don't really care about excessive government spending and those who don't know what's going on.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 01:02 PM
again, fact check before you call BS. Yes, it was 88% not 90% but, the point still stands. The vast majority of Democrats were the only ones yelling about unfunded bills. That this was a good idea,, but lets pay for it. Bush wanted to borrow the money from the chinese to pay for it. The facts are the Republicans spent like drunken sailors under Bush and are just hypocrites calling for finanicial restraint now.

Another sucker. The dems opposed it because they wanted a more costly version. You can't point to Bush's prescription drug program to make a case for democrat's being more fiscally responsible. The annoying details tell the opposite story. There are no bigger hypocrites on financial restraint than current Obama supporters.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 01:08 PM
The CBO projected on Jan 7, 2009 the deficit would be $1.2 trillion so that was before the stimilus bill.

No one is saying Obama hasn't added to the deficit but what he said is 100% true.

The key word there is "projected". Obama had 9 months to change the trajectory of the budget. He did. For the worse.

A certain amount of the '09 budget was already spent before Obama took office and he deserves some slack for that, but to the extent that that spending was TARP which was eventually repaid, he doesn't deserve two bites at that excuse (i.e. a Bush hit for spending it and an Obama credit for being repaid all in the same fiscal year).

Obama is the king of fiscal irresponsibility. Even his so-called "budget freeze" is a case of locking in extraordinarily high spending rather than limiting spending. And on top of that, he's washing out any tiny savings that accountants can spin out of that "freeze" by proposing an order of magnitude more NEW spending on a second version of porkulous.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2010, 01:15 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3QqO8EXd-II/S2aoMP9Tm1I/AAAAAAAAwHo/HZXq-Mzr47Y/s400/lie-02-final-resized-srgb-700.jpg

HonestChieffan
02-01-2010, 01:17 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xyodr8evUcg&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xyodr8evUcg&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BigRedChief
02-01-2010, 02:04 PM
Another sucker. The dems opposed it because they wanted a more costly version. You can't point to Bush's prescription drug program to make a case for democrat's being more fiscally responsible. The annoying details tell the opposite story. There are no bigger hypocrites on financial restraint than current Obama supporters.So, Are Dems known as the fiscal responsible party? Or is it the Republicans?

To have Republicans screaming for a fiscial restraint after pushing for and approving a unfunded, what the hell lets borrow the money from the chinese $1.1 trillion tax cut and another $1.2 trillion free giveaway to Big Pharma. and then add in the unfunded cost of 2 wars? Republicans = the Fiscal responsiblity party? ROFL yeah right...

HonestChieffan
02-01-2010, 02:20 PM
When Repubs beef up Medicare, its a gift to big Pharma. When Dems do it its taking care of the poor, downtrodden, needy among us.....

You guys need focus. Is Bush the bad? Or are repubs in congress the bad? Damn, if the congress of the last 6 years, dominated by dems is to be blameless in this then lets figure out who is to blame.

The only consistancy I see in the Dem Congress. Bush aint thene any more and the congress prior to B Dems taking over didnt spend like this. And under Obama its far and away worse.

But that said, I need to know. Is it Bush we blame or the congressional republicans we blame.

BigRedChief
02-01-2010, 02:27 PM
But that said, I need to know. Is it Bush we blame or the congressional republicans we blame.Both.

Just like Obama and the congressional dems will get the blame. Party in power gets the blame or the praise. Thats just the way it is.

Radar Chief
02-01-2010, 02:30 PM
Moral equivalency is the only move I have.

FYP.

banyon
02-01-2010, 02:32 PM
I am not arguin what Bush did. The Dems wanted more. That being said,the fact is Obama was handed a deficit between $400-$800 bil. Not the $1.3 tril he is trying to claim.

This is not accurate, as it didn't include the budget for Iraq and Afghanistan which the Obama administration does. Bush did it through an earmark. That's a $200 Bill swing.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2010, 02:33 PM
Both.

Just like Obama and the congressional dems will get the blame. Party in power gets the blame or the praise. Thats just the way it is.

Ok. Thanks.

I was getting all confused and stuff.

Stoopid Bush and his bunch.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 02:40 PM
So, Are Dems known as the fiscal responsible party? Or is it the Republicans?

To have Republicans screaming for a fiscial restraint after pushing for and approving a unfunded, what the hell lets borrow the money from the chinese $1.1 trillion tax cut and another $1.2 trillion free giveaway to Big Pharma. and then add in the unfunded cost of 2 wars? Republicans = the Fiscal responsiblity party? ROFL yeah right...

Republicans, as a group, were not fiscally responsible when they were in charge. The democrats are an order of magnitude worse and always have been.

BigRedChief
02-01-2010, 04:51 PM
Republicans, as a group, were not fiscally responsible when they were in charge. The democrats are an order of magnitude worse and always have been.Yeah we suck, but those guys suck worse isn't a winning political formula.

headsnap
02-01-2010, 05:08 PM
Yeah we suck, but those guys suck worse isn't a winning political formula.

ROFL

and that is Obama's current strategery...

KILLER_CLOWN
02-01-2010, 05:12 PM
If we only created threads when Obama told the truth, there wouldn't be any threads on the planet.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 06:59 PM
Yeah we suck, but those guys suck worse isn't a winning political formula.

Yet another thing on which you disagree with your political crush. Mary Matalin and James Carville aint got nothin on you and your Big O.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 06:06 AM
Says he inhertied a $1.3 tril deficit.

Also, blames the previous Admin. for the drug care program and record spending.

If one looks at the facts, the spending increased significantly starting in 2007. Who controlled Congress in 2007, 2008 and 2009?

Secondly the Drug program was supported by Dems.

Thirdly I believe Obama himself voted for all of the spending.

Of course he's lying. That's all the greasy turd shit out of Mayor Daley's ass does.

http://coldfury.com/?p=21985

patteeu
02-02-2010, 06:41 AM
Of course he's lying. That's all the greasy turd shit out of Mayor Daley's ass does.

http://coldfury.com/?p=21985

Glen Reynolds' quote from Norma's link:

<blockquote><p>You see this kind of thing [i.e. Ozombies asking conservatives how many times they protested Bush deficits] pop up in comments a lot, and sometimes even out of the mouth of the less-honest variety of pundit. Which means, of course, that once again it’s time to roll out this graphic:<br />
<center><br />
<img src="http://coldfury.com/images/deficit_graph.jpg" width="400" height="330" border="0"><br />
</center><br />
Notice anything? Like maybe how <em>Bush’s deficits are dwarfed by Obama’s?</em> And maybe how <em>the deficit was falling throughout Bush’s second term?</em> Until the very end, when TARP — hardly popular with the Tea Party crowd — rolled out. The “Bush was as big a spender as Obama” line is just a flat-out lie, which the apologists for the powers that be hope you’ll buy because…well, because a lie is pretty much all they’ve got at this point.
</p></blockquote>

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 06:45 AM
You see this kind of thing pop up in comments a lot, and sometimes even out of the mouth of the less-honest variety of pundit. Which means, of course, that once again it’s time to roll out this graphic:


<CENTER>

http://coldfury.com/images/deficit_graph.jpg

</CENTER>

Notice anything? Like maybe how Bush’s deficits are dwarfed by Obama’s? And maybe how the deficit was falling throughout Bush’s second term? Until the very end, when TARP — hardly popular with the Tea Party crowd — rolled out. The “Bush was as big a spender as Obama” line is just a flat-out lie, which the apologists for the powers that be hope you’ll buy because…well, because a lie is pretty much all they’ve got at this point.

Now that you mention it...Bush was a financial and deficit conservative. I'm convinced that the $1.1 trillion tax cuts, the $1.2 trillion give away to big pharma and the $1.5 trillion and counting for Iraq was all the democrats fault.

Ebolapox
02-02-2010, 06:54 AM
So, Are Dems known as the fiscal responsible party? Or is it the Republicans?

To have Republicans screaming for a fiscial restraint after pushing for and approving a unfunded, what the hell lets borrow the money from the chinese $1.1 trillion tax cut and another $1.2 trillion free giveaway to Big Pharma. and then add in the unfunded cost of 2 wars? Republicans = the Fiscal responsiblity party? ROFL yeah right...

see, this is the issue I have. everybody is wanting to make this an 'us vs. them' issue---it's not. if there's ANY us, it's 'we the people.' if there's any them, it's those lying egomaniacal tyrants who run our lives by proxy because 'we the people' are too fucking dumb to get rid of their worthless asses.

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 07:05 AM
see, this is the issue I have. everybody is wanting to make this an 'us vs. them' issue---it's not. if there's ANY us, it's 'we the people.' if there's any them, it's those lying egomaniacal tyrants who run our lives by proxy because 'we the people' are too ****ing dumb to get rid of their worthless asses.I agree. Both sides are at fault for a broken Washington. Neither side is innocent in getting us in this mess. That was my point, Bush was just as bad as Obama. It's the friggin system. Buying 10 more C-30's the military doesn't want and told Congress no thanks, we are good. But, Congress says here they are anyway, why? Thats repeated over and over again every year.

It's the lobbyists and money controlling congress on both sides and its only going to get worse thanks to the SCOTUS. The elected officials start running for the next election as soon as they are elected. They can't get elected or re-elected without corporate money for TV ads.

mlyonsd
02-02-2010, 07:14 AM
It's the lobbyists and money controlling congress on both sides and its only going to get worse thanks to the SCOTUS. The elected officials start running for the next election as soon as they are elected. They can't get elected or re-elected without corporate money for TV ads.

JFC, you mean thanks to the founding fathers for not spelling the first ammendment out more to your liking.

Funny you want to blame the SCOTUS when the system was still corrupt before their ruling.

Guess what, it's the elected officials that are being bought. You act like they're completely innocent. Start holding them accountable.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 07:20 AM
Now that you mention it...Bush was a financial and deficit conservative. I'm convinced that the $1.1 trillion tax cuts, the $1.2 trillion give away to big pharma and the $1.5 trillion and counting for Iraq was all the democrats fault.

Face it, you chose small pox over a minor case of the sniffles. You can live in denial, but you can't change the truth.

Look at that chart. DON'T AVERT YOUR EYES... LOOK AT IT!! (lol) Ignore Obama's huge red line in his first year if you must. Look at his out-years instead. Is that where you want this country to be headed? Obama is a disaster and his fiscal irresponsibility goes way beyond anything that can be blamed on Bush.

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 07:21 AM
JFC, you mean thanks to the founding fathers for not spelling the first ammendment out more to your liking.And that was on purpose so that future generations can decide the limitation of the freedom they want in their society.

I think the free enterprise system is the best economic and social system to better all of us citzens. We have created the biggest middle class in the history of the world, evah. Thats a helluva accomplishment. But it would be good to heed Ike's words......

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex)... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

patteeu
02-02-2010, 07:22 AM
Bush was just as bad as Obama.

http://moistworks.com/images/art_lie.jpg

mlyonsd
02-02-2010, 07:44 AM
And that was on purpose so that future generations can decide the limitation of the freedom they want in their society.



Then pass an ammendment and quit whining about the SCOTUS just doing their job.

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 07:45 AM
Then pass an ammendment and quit whining about the SCOTUS just doing their job.They just didn't do their job. They made new law. I don't want to hear a peep out of the right about "activist" judges ever again.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 07:52 AM
You are silly pete. Bush was the POTUS, he had to sign the bills so ultimately he is responsible.

You need to look at the facts. Bush didn't veto 1 bill from 2000-2006. He vetoed 10 bills from 2007 until he left office and only 2 were over-ridden.

Also the $1.2 trillion dollar Medicare bill was in 2003 and 90% of Dems opposed it and 90% of Republicans supported it. The Bush administration had to threaten Rick Foster with his job, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, not to tell what the true costs were for this bill so it would get passed.

Oh that's nonsense. In order for Bush to get what he needed he signed. Although, he still has some responsibility it's mainly congress who presents the bill. That does not let them off the hook. It just makes both sides culpable.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 08:23 AM
They just didn't do their job. They made new law. I don't want to hear a peep out of the right about "activist" judges ever again.

They didn't make any new law. They returned the state of the law to that which was envisioned by our founding fathers and authorized by the constitution. The judicial system worked for a change.

KC native
02-02-2010, 08:40 AM
Glen Reynolds' quote from Norma's link:

Couldn't have anything to do with how Shrub accounted for the war could it?

mlyonsd
02-02-2010, 08:47 AM
They just didn't do their job. They made new law. I don't want to hear a peep out of the right about "activist" judges ever again.

I'm not surprised you'd think so, but you'd be wrong.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 09:06 AM
I agree. Both sides are at fault

B.O. is a failure. Acknowledge it.

BigRedChief
02-02-2010, 09:27 AM
They didn't make any new law. They returned the state of the law to that which was envisioned by our founding fathers and authorized by the constitution. The judicial system worked for a change.yeah, when its changed to suit your beliefs its just the system working. When its something you disapprove of, its those damn activist judges.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 11:24 AM
yeah, when its changed to suit your beliefs its just the system working. When its something you disapprove of, its those damn activist judges.

It's got more to do with what the people who ratified the constitution believed than what I do.

petegz28
02-02-2010, 11:28 AM
yeah, when its changed to suit your beliefs its just the system working. When its something you disapprove of, its those damn activist judges.

I disagree. Activism is when you say things like abortion are legal based on a Right to Privacy. No one can tell a woman what she can do with her body.

Yet, in most States she can't prostitute her body, throw it off a bridge or intoxicate it with marijuana or other drugs. What happened to the Right to Privacy and not telling someone what they can and cannot do to\with their body?

****, there are leaders trying to outlaw obesity FFS.