Lankford only OK congressman to vote against fiscal cliff

Posted 569 day(s) ago 2871 Views 100 Replies
Results 1 to 50 of 101
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
  1. #1
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,308
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Lankford only OK congressman to vote against fiscal cliff

    Rep. James Lankford Only Oklahoman Voting Against Fiscal Cliff Deal
    Posted by Chris Casteel on January 2, 2013M at 8:37 am

    Rep. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma City, was the only member of Oklahoma’s congressional delegation who voted against the fiscal cliff deal on Tuesday. Both of Oklahoma’s senators supported it, and four of the five House members voted aye late Tuesday night.
    Among the four House members supporting it were outgoing Reps. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, and John Sullivan, R-Tulsa. Both of those members will be leaving the House on Thursday, when their replacements will be sworn in.
    Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, said Wednesday, “This agreement is far from perfect, but preventing the largest tax increase in history and making tax cuts permanent for 98 percent of taxpayers is a major victory for American workers and for the economy.
    “While I would prefer a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts, passage of this bill lays the groundwork for significant spending reductions in the coming weeks. With tax rate increases off the table, President Obama and Senate Democrats will be forced to confront reality and accept spending and entitlement reforms.
    “Passage of permanent tax relief ensures that the upcoming budget debates will be solely focused on spending restraint.
    “Congress will have three significant opportunities in the next three months to reduce the deficit when we debate the debt ceiling, the across-the-board sequestration cuts, and the government funding bill that expires in March. The fiscal cliff is certainly not the last debate we’ll have over spending, but it is the last time President Obama will be able to threaten massive tax increases to avoid addressing the real causes of our debt.”
    .

  2. #2
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,308
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    At least Cole's statement offers some hope for spending cuts.

  3. #3
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,308
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Senators Tom Coburn, Jim Inhofe Vote for Fiscal Cliff Deal
    Posted by Chris Casteel on January 1, 2013M at 4:09 pm

    Both of Oklahoma’s Republican senators voted for the fiscal cliff deal early Tuesday morning.

    Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, said, “While this bill is far from perfect, it does prevent massive tax increases while making tax cuts permanent for 99 percent of Americans.
    “Congress and the president, however, have a lot of work to do to address our long-tern spending problem. Our debt – which is 120 percent of our economy if you count federal, state and local debt – is still the greatest threat to our national security. We will never address that threat until Congress and the president acknowledge that the only way to save entitlement programs is to change them.”
    Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, said, ““While this deal to avoid the fiscal cliff is not perfect, Senate Democrats have caved to making permanent the Bush tax cuts for 99 percent of Americans.
    “The deal will cement the tax cuts for individuals making less than $400,000 a year or $450,000 for families, and permanently fix the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Even though President Obama wanted to extend the death tax exemption only up to $1 million, this deal extends the exemption for up to $5 million, $10 million for couples. As I have travelled around Oklahoma, it has been clear to me that this is the single most important issue for our farmers, ranchers, and family owned businesses.
    “One of my greatest concerns about the fiscal cliff has been the devastating cuts that would happen to our military due to defense sequestration. This deal avoids those cuts for two months to allow for a better solution. While I would like to have sequestration addressed, I am hopeful the deal’s two-month delay will help us better prioritize deep spending cuts while protecting our military and national security.
    “The deal also includes an important one year extension of the farm bill, and extends for one year provisions that prevent doctors from being forced to take rate cuts for treating Medicare patients.
    “I do not agree with the deal’s extension of unemployment benefits for another year or that it only achieves a small deficit reduction. I look forward to negotiating more spending cuts when we deal with the debt limit increase. Even though President Obama wanted that included in this deal, we are wisely waiting to address that separately so that we can have better spending cuts. After four years of Obama running up $5.3 trillion in deficit spending, any deal to raise the debt ceiling must be contingent upon making significant cuts to get our fiscal house in order.”
    “This deal should be seen as a victory for conservatives as it achieves for the first time in decades a bipartisan agreement for permanent tax cuts for a majority of Americans. These tax cuts will help to restore certainty and encourage economic growth.”
    Looks like the OK pub senators and congressmen are working from the same script.

  4. #4
    Yuck Fu's Avatar
    Posts
    4,264
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Ah so, mutha fucka.

    Lankford is a Longhorn grad. And he didn't do a very good job of keeping the kids from having sex when he was at Falls creek..........

    Oh, and he is a ginger.
    The following users like this post: OUMallen


  5. #5
    Should we thank him for trying to **** us all? This guy is a clown.

  6. #6
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,308
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Lankford has never been appealing to me other than he generally votes conservative on fiscal matters. But I give him kudos for voting no.

  7. #7
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,308
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by soonerbornsoonerbret View Post
    Should we thank him for trying to **** us all? This guy is a clown.
    So you supported the Bush tax cuts?

  8. #8
    I don't understand how being a preacher or whatever he was, and running Falls Creek (poorly btw) makes you qualified in the slightest to be a congressman...but whatever...
    2 users like jumperstop's post: OUMallen, soonerbornsoonerbret


  9. #9
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by jumperstop View Post
    I don't understand how being a preacher or whatever he was, and running Falls Creek (poorly btw) makes you qualified in the slightest to be a congressman...but whatever...
    For me, I don't want someone relying on God to guide his decision making in running a country.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by jumperstop View Post
    I don't understand how being a preacher or whatever he was, and running Falls Creek (poorly btw) makes you qualified in the slightest to be a congressman...but whatever...
    you should do some research into the qualifications to run for congress.....it might surprise you
    2 users like 87sooner's post: OU48A, soonerintn


  11. #11
    Originally Posted by soonerbornsoonerbret View Post
    Should we thank him for trying to **** us all? This guy is a clown.
    So you are a Bush policy supporter just because it's Obama's policies now. Got it!

    Honestly we went over the fiscal cliff decades ago. We just have the illusion that we aren't going over with this measure being passed. We don't have much time before the dollar bubble bursts and everyone will see that the emperor has no clothes.

  12. #12
    Yasiel Puig's Avatar
    Posts
    1,663
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond

    Props to him for standing up against a joke of a bill
    3 users like Yasiel Puig's post: DRminimega67, pbc2003, Tundra


  13. #13
    Tundra's Avatar
    Posts
    2,662
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Indian Territory

    Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    Props to him for standing up against a joke of a bill
    Yep

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    For me, I don't want someone relying on God to guide his decision making in running a country.
    why not?
    you don't think God knows how to run a country?

  15. #15
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    why not?
    you don't think God knows how to run a country?
    I just don't believe in theocracy.

    Unless you can prove to me that God exists 100% and that you know His will 100%. Then I'm down with theocracy.
    The following users like this post: TIMB0B


  16. #16
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    I just don't believe in theocracy.
    i don't either...
    but christians are "led" by God...
    so i guess you're against any christian in congress...

  17. #17
    mgsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    7,022
    Join Date
    May 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Tallsa

    Lankford is a closeted gay of the highest order.
    3 users like mgsooner's post: brokebacksooner, OUMallen, soonerbornsoonerbret


  18. #18
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    i don't either...
    but christians are "led" by God...
    so i guess you're against any christian in congress...
    Nope, I'm just against anyone that can't make a secular decision. If you can't make a secular, rational decision, you're a religious nutjob zealot of the highest order.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Nope, I'm just against anyone that can't make a secular decision. If you can't make a secular, rational decision, you're a religious nutjob zealot of the highest order.
    I submit that there's about 6 people in Washington that can actually make rational decisions--secular or not.
    5 users like oucub23's post: brokebacksooner, OUMallen, pphilfran, Sooner Bob, TIMB0B


  20. #20
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Nope, I'm just against anyone that can't make a secular decision. If you can't make a secular, rational decision, you're a religious nutjob zealot of the highest order.
    what evidence do you have to prove lankford can't make a "secular" decision....(whatever that is)?
    i'm not a fan of his since he voted yes on ndaa.....but i don't know of any bills he has submitted that requires you to go to a baptist church....

  21. #21
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    11,163
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I submit that there's about 6 people in Washington that can actually make rational decisions--secular or not.
    I think 6 is stretching it....
    5 users like pphilfran's post: brokebacksooner, Clark W. Griswold, oucub23, OUMallen, sooner28


  22. #22
    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    I think 6 is stretching it....
    yeah....
    coburn....paul......
    help me out with 4 more....

  23. #23
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    what evidence do you have to prove lankford can't make a "secular" decision....(whatever that is)?
    i'm not a fan of his since he voted yes on ndaa.....but i don't know of any bills he has submitted that requires you to go to a baptist church....
    You're the one that said every Christian in Congress is guided by God. Now you're saying Lankford makes rational decisions that don't require church membership. Don't be an ****. You know what I mean.

  24. #24
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    For me, I don't want someone relying on God to guide his decision making in running a country.
    Yeah, relying on God. What a ridiculous idea.

    "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"
    --George Washington

  25. #25
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by pbc2003 View Post
    Yeah, relying on God. What a ridiculous idea.

    "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"
    --George Washington
    We're a theocracy? Read my posts above.

  26. #26
    Originally Posted by pbc2003 View Post
    Yeah, relying on God. What a ridiculous idea.

    "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"
    --George Washington
    According to previous measures, he was a religious zealous nutjob of the highest order.

  27. #27
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,793
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by jumperstop View Post
    I don't understand how being a preacher or whatever he was, and running Falls Creek (poorly btw) makes you qualified in the slightest to be a congressman...but whatever...
    Preacher running Fallscreek = bad, unqualified
    Community organizer, worshiper at the Church of I Hate America and ****** = good, qualified.
    The following users like this post: TIMB0B


  28. #28
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    According to previous measures, he was a religious zealous nutjob of the highest order.
    Work on your reading comprehension, cub. Also, you know for a fact that George Washington made every decision based on what he thought God's will was? He's a pretty shitty interpreter of God's will, in that case! He was a slave-owner. Quite the Christian!

    LET'S BASE ALL OUR DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY ON OUR INTERPRETATION OF GOD'S WILL! THAT, IN NO WAY AT ALL, IS A THEOCRACY OF THE TYPE WE ABHOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

    George Washington was an amazing general, but I'm think I have a better idea of what it is to be Christlike than he did, slaveowner as he was. You guys are being idiots today. Promoting theocratic principles, and hailing a lifelong slaveowner as a paragon of Christian principles vis-a-vis national leadership. Too much champagne Monday night? Holy hell.

  29. #29
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    5,455
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    There is nothing wrong with praying about a decision or turning to one's Christian beliefs for guidance.

    You sometimes just have to remember that you live in the US in 2013 and not some place in the Middle East in 40 BC.

  30. #30
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    In fact, history shows that he rejected his Christian duty out of a sense of duty to his country.

    Washington's failure to act publicly upon his growing private misgivings about slavery during his lifetime is seen by some historians as a missed opportunity. The major reason Washington did not emancipate his slaves after the 1782 law and prior to his death was because of the financial costs involved. To circumvent this problem, in 1794 he quietly sought to sell off his western lands and lease his outlying farms in order to finance the emancipation of his slaves, but this plan fell through because enough buyers and renters could not be found. Also, Washington did not want to risk splitting the new nation apart over the slavery issue. "He did not speak out publicly against slavery", argues historian Dorothy Twohig, "because he did not wish to risk splitting apart the young republic over what was already a sensitive and divisive issue."
    The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma


  31. #31
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,793
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    He's a pretty shitty interpreter of God's will, in that case! He was a slave-owner. Quite the Christian!
    Well, in his defense, the Bible is neutral at best on slavery. It practically condones it.

  32. #32
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    5,455
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Here I thought the majority of slavery in the bible described those who owed a debt and chose to pay it off by working for the ones they owed.

  33. #33
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Work on your reading comprehension, cub. Also, you know for a fact that George Washington made every decision based on what he thought God's will was? He's a pretty shitty interpreter of God's will, in that case! He was a slave-owner. Quite the Christian!

    LET'S BASE ALL OUR DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY ON OUR INTERPRETATION OF GOD'S WILL! THAT, IN NO WAY AT ALL, IS A THEOCRACY OF THE TYPE WE ABHOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

    George Washington was an amazing general, but I'm think I have a better idea of what it is to be Christlike than he did, slaveowner as he was. You guys are being idiots today. Promoting theocratic principles, and hailing a lifelong slaveowner as a paragon of Christian principles vis-a-vis national leadership. Too much champagne Monday night? Holy hell.
    I know nothing about Washington's decision making processes for a fact. Nor do you--but of course, we know nothing about anyone's decision making processes for a fact except for our own. I also know there were reasons Washington owned slaves that you are ignoring, or maybe you don't know.

    Nobody's promoting theocratic principles. You're getting wound up again, and ignoring what was written while telling other people to work on reading comprehension. Odd that.

    OUMallen:
    I just don't believe in theocracy.

    87:
    i don't either...
    but christians are "led" by God...
    so i guess you're against any christian in congress...

    You take 87s statement that Christians are supposed to be led by God and jump to Mid East theocratic rule--in a reply that says specifically that he doesn't believe in theocratic rule. You're doing the very thing you're railing against others doing.

  34. #34
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Well, in his defense, the Bible is neutral at best on slavery. It practically condones it.
    Yeah, especially the part where the Jews escaped from slavery.

    Doesn't take too much intelligence to surmise that slavery is, like, bad and stuff under Christian mores.

  35. #35
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I know nothing about Washington's decision making processes for a fact. Nor do you--but of course, we know nothing about anyone's decision making processes for a fact except for our own. I also know there were reasons Washington owned slaves that you are ignoring, or maybe you don't know.

    Nobody's promoting theocratic principles. You're getting wound up again, and ignoring what was written while telling other people to work on reading comprehension. Odd that.

    OUMallen:
    I just don't believe in theocracy.

    87:
    i don't either...
    but christians are "led" by God...
    so i guess you're against any christian in congress...

    You take 87s statement that Christians are supposed to be led by God and jump to Mid East theocratic rule--in a reply that says specifically that he doesn't believe in theocratic rule. You're doing the very thing you're railing against others doing.
    Reading comprehension, genius. Don't be like the other idiots.

    Nope, I'm just against anyone that can't make a secular decision. If you can't make a secular, rational decision, you're a religious nutjob zealot of the highest order.

  36. #36
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    5,455
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Yeah, especially the part where the Jews escaped from slavery.

    You mean the part where it was God's will that they escape and enabled them to do so by among other things parting the Red Sea?

  37. #37
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    You mean the part where it was God's will that they escape and enabled them to do so by among other things parting the Red Sea?
    Yep! That's it! That whole story where God's will enabled a mere human to perform miracles in order to free people from bondage.

    Sancho, I don't even WANT to know what church you go to, my man...

  38. #38
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Reading comprehension, genius. Don't be like the other idiots.
    You're creating a false qualifier. You don't know if Lankford can or can't. Being led by Christ doesn't mean you can't. This thread is heading straight to Stillwater though, so I'm done.

  39. #39
    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    You mean the part where it was God's will that they escape and enabled them to do so by among other things parting the Red Sea?
    Lankford should try this... walk to the middle of whatever lake he's closest too, and if it's God's will... he'll part the sea and save him from drowning.
    The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma


  40. #40
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    5,455
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by soonerbornsoonerbret View Post
    Lankford should try this... walk to the middle of whatever lake he's closest too, and if it's God's will... he'll part the sea and save him from drowning.
    If it only worked like that . . . . might be fun.

  41. #41
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Nope, I'm just against anyone that can't make a secular decision. If you can't make a secular, rational decision, you're a religious nutjob zealot of the highest order.
    good for you..
    you have one vote to make sure we don't have a "theocracy"....
    you shouldn't lose sleep over lankford's decision making process...

    also....even tho you deleted it.....isn't it finally a relief to come clean that you are not a christian....

  42. #42
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,308
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by mgsooner View Post
    Lankford is a closeted gay of the highest order.
    Then you should probably support him.
    2 users like okie52's post: jdmt37, Tundra


  43. #43
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,308
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by soonerbornsoonerbret View Post
    Lankford should try this... walk to the middle of whatever lake he's closest too, and if it's God's will... he'll part the sea and save him from drowning.
    So you disagree with his vote or his Baptist beliefs..or both?

  44. #44
    Originally Posted by mgsooner View Post
    Lankford is a closeted gay of the highest order.
    i didn't realize there were "orders" of closeted gayness....

  45. #45
    Yuck Fu's Avatar
    Posts
    4,264
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Ah so, mutha fucka.

    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    Here I thought the majority of slavery in the bible described those who owed a debt and chose to pay it off by working for the ones they owed.

    Yes of course. You probably come out of the "wine was really grapejuice" doctrinal school.

  46. #46
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    5,455
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by Yuck Fu View Post
    Yes of course. You probably come out of the "wine was really grapejuice" doctrinal school.
    Sorry to disappoint, but you are incorrect. I know the difference between wine and g**** juice.

  47. #47

    Re: Lankford only OK congressman to vote against fiscal cliff

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    i didn't realize there were "orders" of closeted gayness....
    Really? 87 is the highest level.
    The following users like this post: brokebacksooner


  48. #48
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    good for you..
    you have one vote to make sure we don't have a "theocracy"....
    you shouldn't lose sleep over lankford's decision making process...

    also....even tho you deleted it.....isn't it finally a relief to come clean that you are not a christian....
    I edited a post to add stuff, I don't think I deleted anything. If I did, it wasn't important and it certainly wasn't to hide anything.

  49. #49
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    You're creating a false qualifier. You don't know if Lankford can or can't. Being led by Christ doesn't mean you can't. This thread is heading straight to Stillwater though, so I'm done.
    It's not a false qualifier at all. Like I said - I don't trust any government leader or government agent that can't make a rational decision that is based on the laws of man and reason and not his own personal religious beliefs.

    Thank gawd our gov't agents are not empowered to do so. We'd have religious police officers refusing to help gay men and legislators giving money to churches.

    The crazy thing about your and 87's whole retarded line of reasoning is: you think you're defending the faith against something, when really you're being super unpatriotic, WHICH is also something you try to defend against. You're intellectually dishonest, the both of you.

  50. #50
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    So you disagree with his vote or his Baptist beliefs..or both?
    Pretty much everything he believes in, I probably don't.

    He thinks the sky is blue... I say it's green.
    Pizza is good, no it ****ing sucks.
    Being gay is a choice... no it's not.

Similar Threads

  1. A letter from Congressman Lankford
    By okie52 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 12th, 2013, 04:44 PM
  2. Replies: 273
    Last Post: January 28th, 2013, 02:09 PM
  3. White House offer on avoiding fiscal cliff
    By pphilfran in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: December 9th, 2012, 10:17 AM
  4. The Fiscal Cliff and the Grand Bargain
    By Sooner5030 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 28th, 2012, 11:40 PM
  5. Replies: 30
    Last Post: August 25th, 2012, 12:21 AM