Feisty:

Great post! It looks like you are fired up and ready to go! Showing your source is something the conservatives hate to see.

Plus Feisty they should check Halliburton's checking account or all of their accounts just to make sure the money isn't there or better yet check Cheney's off shore accounts.

I've noticed that I haven't heard any Republicans speaking out on this. I wonder why????

Feisty, I was thinking about the invasion of Iraq this morning as I made my way into work and I noticed that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of kinder gentler nation coming out of that catastrophe. No regrets that I see on tv from those who made the decisions. None. Nor from many of the Bush Administration supporters. It was an awful awful thing we did going into there.

Yet...

Feisty,

Right on with your post. I saw the article yesterday about the 8.7B missing (unaccounted for). You beat me to the gun which is good because your did a far better job than I could have. Is Hailburton doing anything over there?? Probably would be worth a look to see if they have the 8.7B. LOL

On a serious note, I do not think we will ever know the whole story, it could be for pay-offs, just stolen, who knows for sure.

Could you imagine the CFO of a fortune 500 Company misplacing 8.7B. The shareholders would have him drawn and quartered (unless he was the CFO of a Wall Street firm, he would get a bonus).

Good Morning Gang,

Looks like the Repubs are not doing so hot, and them 'losing' $8.7B is just the most recent capper. But what could you expect with Cheney's company Halliburton getting those no bid contracts and all, heck, they 'misplaced' over $1B themselves that they could not track because their bookkeeping was so bad. However, there is NO way that they can pin this one on President Obama so I guess we would get to laugh about it all day, if it were not so danged tragic for the ordinary Iraqi.

Terrific post. That $9 billion has been missing for quite awhile and one can only contemplate where so much cash could have gone--losing billions cannot be easy. $9 billion would have added some much needed American jobs for clean energy or high-speed rail.

All right, Feisty ... I'll see your bet ...

What a field day for the heat, a thousand people in the streets

Singing songs, and carrying signs, mostly say hooray for our side ....

Would anybody believe I used to teach those lyrics to high school students as poetry? Probably couldn't do that now.

Ah, it's morning in America and the long knives are already out on the leftist FR blog.

Feisty said: "We invaded a sovereign nation based on outright LIES..."

Then Ron said to Feisty: "Great post....Showing your source is something the conservatives hate to see."

Fair enough.

So Ron, you will no doubt join me in asking Feisty to provide the source documentation that supports her slanderous assertion that the U.S. initiated the Iraq war based on "lies." For example, I'd be interested in knowing the American court where President Bush or any of his staff were tried and convicted of lying in this matter. Barring that, I would be interested in seeing the credible analysis of any reputable MSM or think tank type organization that proved within reason that Bush and his people deliberately lied.

I'll even help you out. There is no such court nor is there is any such analysis. The slander of Bush lies is a fantasy so deeply embedded in the fabric of the leftist narrative that no card carrying leftist would even consider challenging it. That's too bad, you folks might want to inform yourselves by rummaging through these materials. Then come back and show us which of these documents proves that Bush lied.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

And while you're at it, you might want to offer similar proof that the Brits, the French and the Germans (among others) also lied. Because all of those countries and more bought off on the prevailing wisdom of their collective intelligence agencies that Iraq did possess WMD. In hindsight, it's fair to criticize the quality of that intelligence and many on both the left and the right have done so. But it's quite a leap to go from faulty intelligence to outright lies and the burden is on you folks to prove your point.

Great post Feisty . . . I notice a certain "dismissed" poster . . . unable to refute your central assertion . . . went immediately into "change the subject" mode . . . a tactic that they claim to abhor.

Irony is not dead.

Good post, Feisty. I didn't watch the news yesterday...Frankly I've been avoiding it. I'm so sick of hearing bad news..

But...Since I didn't watch the news, is anyone speaking about the 9 billion unaccounted for? Is anyone bringing this up or digging in to it?

Still spinning and distracting I see Bill:

Why no mention of the missing 9 Billion Bill?

Why no mention of the (2) wars being completely unfunded Bill?

Why no mention of Bush opening the Chinese credit card Bill?

Why no mention of spending billions to rebuid a nation we destroyed and the right wing REFUSING to help out their own here at home who are suffering Bill?

Why no mention it was the Repulicans who 'misplaced' the 9 BILLION Bill?

Why is there not one peep out of any of the righties on this board beside you about this Bill?

Nah... much easier to spin & distract!

Nash: Since you clobbered him... looks like I'm now the object of his 'affection' lol

Bill,

Do WMD'S ring a bell. George had everybody believing in WMD'S in Iraq was a fact, even General Powell bought into this and the yellow cake. Turns out this was a LIE. So yes we were snookered by Bush and Chenney to go to war in Iraq on lies.

Ah, it's morning in America and the long knives are already out on the leftist FR blog.

Feisty said: "We invaded a sovereign nation based on outright LIES..."

The Ron said to Feisty: "Great post....Showing your source is something the conservatives hate to see."

Fair enough.

So Ron, you will no doubt join me in asking Feisty to provide the source documentation that supports her slanderous assertion that the U.S. initiated the Iraq war based on "lies." For example, I'd be interested in knowing the American court where President Bush or any of his staff were tried and convicted of lying in this matter. Barring that, I would be interested in seeing the credible analysis of any reputable MSM or think tank type organization that proved within reason that Bush and his people deliberately lied. I'll even help you out. George Washington University has compiled a treasure trove of materials on the Iraq WMD issue. By all means, rummage through this material then come back and show us which of these documents proves that Bush lied.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

And while you're at it, you might want to offer similar proof that the Brits, the French and the Germans (among others) also lied. Because all of those countries and more bought off on the prevailing wisdom of their collective intelligence agencies that Iraq did possess WMD. In hindsight, it's fair to criticize the quality of that intelligence and many on both the left and the right have done so. But it's quite a leap to go from faulty intelligence to outright lies and the burden is on you folks to prove your point.

Anna Molly -

You're right, that one might not fly in the schools. But there's at least one political party who seems to think it makes a pretty good campaign strategy:

Paranoia runs deep

Into your life it will creep

It starts when you're always afraid.....

By the way, I can remember a 12th grade English class where we actually convinced the teacher to let us play the full album version of "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" one day as part of a poetry discussion. Thanks for the memories!

Well Bill, there's this http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/ and this http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/world/powell-says-cia-was-misled-about-weapons.html . They certainly fit most of the definitions found here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie .

Thanks John!

Question for Bill - do you feel your post was so profound it was necessary to post it twice?

Bill,

The Brits, in their long set of testimonies in their inquiry have found that their security agencies lied to their lawmakers about the WMDs in Iraq as well. It has been a long standing fact that Bush/Cheney DID lie to us to get us into that war and the Repubs have NOT been able to refute that fact. Cheney even outed a CIA agent because her husband had the temerity to tell the truth about the yellowcake that was never sold to Iraq. Remember the vids of Bush 'looking for WMDs' in his office and snarking about it the whole time for his Repub buddies? What rock have YOU been hiding under??

Excellent out of the gates, Feisty. If you really want to know where a lot of that 'cash' went, you should rent the movie The Green Zone. Wasn't it "W" himself who said he would be LONG gone before anyone ever knew what happened in his oval office. I may be paraphrasing a bit; but that was the literal gist.

Of course when "W" misspoke - it was a gaffe, when President Obama does it, he's a LIAR. No double standard here, I dare say!

And now to sum up Feisty's point:

"...all we are saying, is give peace a chance!"

Sorry about the double post. I'll try and do this one just once.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365793062101552.html

Clara,

The Repubs think they are talking about Whirled Peas, and as we all know, they Never eat their vegetables!

Thanks all for the kind words! Sorry for the 'bump' Perfessor - my schedule this morning is erratic! ;0)

I know I'm not the only one who finds the silence from the right on this deafening...

Well, with the exception of the 'Spinball Wizard' that is...

Where's the Republican't battle cry? What ABOUT the CHILDREN?

Bill - your link is not working! ;0)

Bill,

it is really funny that you posted that particular link. That refers us to an opinion piece in the Right Wing WSJ and does not actually refute the lies that were made by Cheney in getting us into the war. All it does is say that the Repubs should have lied more and louder after the CIA lied to Congress and they made their statements and votes based on that. Just a couple of facts that happen to be missing from that opinion piece. It is funny that you belittle others for putting up links to other opinions while you do it yourself.

Way to say it like it is Feisty. Glad to see you have not lost a thing. :)

Voted!

Hey Feisty,

Bill had to post twice, it is the new Republican math.

Feisty said: "When it comes to war, the righties have no problem opening up a Chinese Visa card!

And before the right wing nuts get all riled up and try to ‘pin’ this on President Obama, according to the report the Pentagon is unable to account for the funds during the time frame of 2004 through 2007! Guess who was in charge of the credit card for the majority of the time?"

___________________________________________________

Feisty, this is the reason "conservatives hate it when you show your source": We go to the source and read it and find a few lines in:

"The funds are separate from the $53bn allocated by the US Congress for rebuilding Iraq.

Much of the money came from the sale of Iraqi oil and gas, and some frozen Saddam Hussein-era assets were also sold off."

These were NOT TAXPAYER FUNDS!!! THERE WAS NO CHINESE CREDIT CARD!!!

But, since you brought them up, the $9 B over four years is the SAME AMOUNT the Barry admin is putting on the Chinese credit card EVERY 48 HOURS with his 2010 deficit alone. And he is going to continue to do that in 2011, 2012,....... Well, you get the point.

Didn't you say you were an accountant??

Who's going to REPLACE the 9 billion that was LOST Joe?

Pssst... it's not the 'oil fairy'... it's the US TAX PAYERS who are on the HOOK!

While your at it - please point out where I specifically said that the 9 billion was tax payer dollars?

Spin away little Joe... spin away... The pesky FACT of the MATTER is both WARS were UNFUNDED!

SEE... I CAN GO ALL CAPS ON YOU AS WELL!

BWHAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH!

Good morning Joe . . .

9 Billion missing bucks is a big deal . . . no matter where the money came from . . . right?

And that deficit you are whing about was mostly created by Republican Presidents.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

LoL Clara ~ I don't see how that could possibly be, since nothing EVER happened in Bush's Oval Office.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365793062101552.html

Bill, surely you aren't pointing us to a piece written by none other than Karl Rove to somehow show the credibility of...wait for it... Karl Rove?! He was one of the puppet masters of the Bush admin.

I was for the Iraq war before I was a against it, Bill. Having been raised in a military household as a fan of Reagan and a strong republican, I lost that religion all because I was lied to and betrayed by the Bush admin. and there is plenty of documented evidence showing that his admin. was lying their azzes off.

You're gonna have to do better than that, Bill...if it's possible. Considering what the truth is, I don't see how you could do better. Cut your losses, Bill. Bush may not be satan and Obama no god but Bush "lied and people died". It's just a fact, man.

I guess I touched a nerve there, Feisty. And I guess you are not an accountant, either.

Where in your source does it say these funds have to be replaced? (Did you even read your source?)

If you were an accountant, you would know the words used in the audit "is unaccounted for", means that at the time the auditors asked for records to document how the money was spent some of them were not available for the auditors to examine. Again, from your source:

"According to the report, the Pentagon is unable to fully account for $8.7bn of funds it withdrew between 2004 and 2007, and of that amount it "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6bn"."

"unaccounted for" COULD mean stolen, or it could mean the records the auditors wanted are in some Baghdad warehouse. Again, from your source:

"The latest audit does not include allegations of criminal conduct.'

"While your at it - please point out where I specifically said that the 9 billion was tax payer dollars?"

So, if your reference to the "Chinese Visa card" wasn't a reference to taxpayer dollars, would you share with us what it was a refernce to?? Maybe the card your bosses wife uses at Nieman Marcus??

Of the 110 House and Senate Democrats who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force against his regime, 67 said in congressional debate that Saddam had WMD. This didn't keep Democrats from later alleging something they knew was false—that the president had lied America into war.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham organized a bipartisan letter in December 2001 warning Mr. Bush that Saddam's "biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs . . . may be back to pre-Gulf War status," and enhanced by "longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Yet two years later, he called for Mr. Bush's impeachment for having said Saddam had WMD.

On July 9, 2004, Mr. Graham's fellow Democrat on Senate Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller, charged that the Bush administration "at all levels . . . used bad information to bolster the case for war." But in his remarks on Oct. 10, 2002, supporting the war resolution, he said that "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America."

Even Ted Kennedy, who opposed the war resolution, nonetheless said the month before the vote that Saddam's "pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated." But he warned if force were employed, the Iraqi dictator "may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists."

Then there was Al Gore, who charged on June 24, 2004, that Mr. Bush spent "prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies" and accused him of treason, bellowing that Mr. Bush "betrayed his country." Yet just a month before the war resolution debate, the former vice president said, "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Top Democrats led their party in making the "Bush lied, people died" charge because they wanted to defeat him in 2004. That didn't happen. Several bipartisan commissions would later catalogue the serious errors in the intelligence on which Mr. Bush and Democrats relied. But these commissions, particularly the Silberman-Robb report of March 31, 2005, found that the "Bush lied" charge was false.

OK folks, have at it. Where are the factual errors in this account?

Touched a nerve you say Joe? Not on your BEST day! lol

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person! I don't have the time or energy to play the 'game' of twist and and spin with you!

There are 'bigger' fish in this pond Joe - you are still a minnow...

You have brilliantly displayed that you are either unable or unwilling to answer a simple questions!

You instantly revert to the worn out tactic favored by right wingers of 'cherry picking' in an attempt to distract!

Go play 'pick and chose' with someone who finds you semi-relevant... cause I'm done playing with you!

You're dismissed and now on my 'ignore author' list! I would suggest you do the same with me! ;0)

Feisty, you're breaking my heart. I address your posts point by point and you accuse me of

'...revert(ing) to the worn out tactic favored by right wingers of 'cherry picking' in an attempt to distract!"

Then you tell me you're going to shut your eyes and cover your ears and sing "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" as loud as you can so you can't see or hear me.

Please......

Time to grow up, lttle girl.

LOL!!!

Well Joe, it sure looks like the PeeWee (aka the Deadhead) is doing exactly what you said she would. Sticking her chubby fingers in her ears and screeching some thing so she can't hear just how lame he "arguments" are. What a pathetic display this person puts on everyday. It's an embarrassment to watch. She just cannot engage with people that disagree with her moronic positions in any kind of a discussion, and instead just runs away.

See'ya PeeWee.

And, what about the $110 billion the government paid "...to the wrong person, in the wrong amount or for the wrong reasons" in 2009? (Quillon, Tribune-Democrat) In the past three yrs, 20K people who were dead got $180 million. $230 million went to fugitives or people in jail. With our deficits, that $110 billion could go a long way!

So, in the past week, Obama signs the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act which requires that improper payments will be reduced by $50 billion before 2012. Perhaps, the $9B being discussed here will fall under that category. For me, these errors shouldn't be reduced; they should be stopped. Why didn't our President go in and start firing these idiots? Quillon's article continues that a stronger message needed to be delivered "...when you mess with the bull, you get the horns." He cited Reagan's handling of the air-traffic controller strike in 1981 as an example. He told them they were violating the law and had 48 hrs to return to work. They didn't and he fired 11K of them! That's the kind of change I want to see in D.C., that people, regardless of their level/position, are held accountable. But, alas, as Quillon notes: "It's far easier for the president to sign and stand behind memo legislation than it is to hold his employees accountable."

You hang in there Red. You're doing a good job. By the way folks, I'm not a tekno-geek and I'm new to the blogosphere. What does it mean when a comment is "collapsed by the community"? A couple of my responses over the last two days were CbtC on another topic and I want to understand. One of them had something like 57 votes (which I guess is good, I think) and then it got collapsed. I would appreciate your help.

PEACE

Thanks Skip!

Don't worry... I'm not going anywhere! ;0)

Good, but what does COLLAPSED BY THE COMMUNITY mean?

Let me do some research and I'll get back to you!

Thanks Red, I'll admit that I'm a little concerned that I did something unacceptible. I thought getting votes was a positive thing. I thought it meant that somebody agreed with me. But that's just an assumption, I don't really know. All this time I've been voting for comments I liked and I may have been doing something negative. RATS.

I don't know what the green star means either, but one thing at a time.

Keep on doing what you're doing Skip!

You're correct about people voting for you because they either enjoyed your post are in agreement with what you said or... who knows maybe you're really 'special' both! :0)))

You earn a green star after you've received 5 votes...

Are you aware you can also flag posts as being of no value - inflammatory or advertising by clicking on the ! next to the vote box!

I'll see what I can come up with on the collapse thingy - hey... maybe you got so many votes your post self-imploded! lol

I'll get back to ya!

Skip,

Collapsed by the Community means that someone flagged you as Inflammatory. Seems to me that some righties here just use that button to shut down arguments that are too popular and that they can in no way refute, so they maliciously peg it as inflammatory instead. I have NEVER seen any of your posts that would be considered inflammatory, of no value or could be called advertising, which are the 3 reasons that can be used. The right are just sore losers and truly HATE being shown up, let alone by some 57 votes. A green star means that you have received 5 votes or more on your post, which is a good thing.

It is too bad that the right has to ALWAYS play by sneaky underhandedness instead of graciously accepting their losses. They will ALWAYS lie, cheat and steal to win, whatever it takes, and the damage that they do to our Nation is just 'collateral'.

Thanks B. Honest - are you sure about that?

I have on occasion flagged someone as inflamatory who's gone over the top (even by my standards - especially when they start talking about packin heat) and the post remains... so I'm not sure...?

I would think that 57 votes would 'trump' an inflammatory flag anyday!

Just my 0.02...

Feisty,B.Honest and Scott,

If the CBC is correct it must take a few complaints yes or no. I mean what are the rules for this kind of action expecially if the author gets 57 votes. There must be something that would trigger it. I have seen some really raw stuff here and it gets through ok.

Would be interesting to really know, it may even clean up some the posts here a little bit.

Thanks folks, that's kind of what I thought. Yeah a couple of days ago I had a long post and it got 57 votes and suddenly was collapsed and I coudln't understand why. Now I understand. Ok, I'm glad to know that I didn't do something really awful. I'd hate for the blog police to show up at my door and have to explain to my wife why they were there LOL. Actually she'd get a kick out of it. I'm a timid, middle of the road centrist next to her!

PEACE and a good weekend to you all, left, right or inbetween.

I feel very different this morning. Yesterday, we were dems, independents and republicans. Today? Nothing more than a bunch of mongrels.

Filibuster Reform Not Going To Be Able To Overcome a Filibuster

Democrats fought hard in 2005 to prevent the Republican majority from using the “nuclear option” to overcome their filibusters, and a mysterious drug gang, the “Gang of 14,” or the “Jets,” as they are also known, came together to keep the weird parliamentary tactic in place. The GOP has responded, since leaving power, by filibustering just about anything and bear-baiting the Democrats into joining a rival Puerto Rican gang that hates the filibuster, which would make them get stabbed with charges of hypocrisy, and also an angry teenager’s knife. Like with just about any legislation, though, the Democrats can’t come up with enough votes on filibuster reform to overcome a filibuster. But there may be ANOTHER OPTION"

Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/417004/filibuster-reform-not-going-to-be-able-to-overcome-a-filibuster#ixzz0v4y9OXd4

Ron,

Great post. The rules really need some serious overhaul. There is a fundamental flaw in any democratic process that lets 41 NO votes carry more weight than 59 YES votes.

While both parties have used this technique it has been on the rise of late. Some time ago on this board there was a discussion about how the party in minority abused this rule and what they were comparing (trying to) was when the democrats had a minority from 1994 to 2006 they abused this rules as much or more than the republicans currently when the democrats took over control of both houses in 2006. This is just note true.

From the period of 1994-2006 (Congressional Sessions #104 - 109) there were a total of 424 motions for clouture. That is an average annual rate of 35 per year for that 12 year period where we were the minority. Starting in 2006 (Congressional Sessions 109 & 110) there have been 242 as of last month, while we held the majority. That is almost three times as many.

This information is readily available from the Senate Web Site.

Senate Action on Cloture Motions

Congress

Years

Motions Filed

Votes on Cloture

Cloture Invoked

111

2009-2010

103

62

50

110

2007-2008

139

112

61

109

2005-2006

68

54

34

108

2003-2004

62

49

12

107

2001-2002

72

61

34

106

1999-2000

71

58

28

105

1997-1998

69

53

18

104

1995-1996

82

50

9

103

1993-1994

80

46

14

102

1991-1992

59

47

22

101

1989-1990

37

24

11

All

Sorry my table did not post correctly. But you can get it from the Senate Web Site in date or session order. Sorry for the technical problem, looked like it was ok, but I guess this board cannot display graphs.

Not to worry, U.S. Navy-

Senate Democrats will never kill the filibuster. Ever.

What little enthusiasm they had for that notion will all but disappear after election day in November.

Excellent. You got it, a two month extension on my prediction is fine with me. I think the constitutional option is a must at this point--the August recess would be a good time to work out the details of when and how. Senator Tom Harkin has a plan where the number of votes required to end the filibuster declines incrementally. That seems a fair idea to me because it allows debate but takes away the current "minority rule" advantage.

Nearly every piece of major legislation from the stimulus to health care became bogged down and watered down to apease a few needed cloture votes--this is why people soured on health care.

I continue to be a supporter of passionate debating of issues and legislation on the Senate floor, arguging philosophical differences but the filibuster is unconstitutional. The Constitution says the majority rules. Neither party should be able to stop legislation by a simple vote--a Senator must instead stop or change legislation by proving they are right. Let's have an open debate but if they cannot convince the others to side with their opinion, the debate ends with a majority vote!

I truly hate to admit this, but Bag Boy might be right, Ron. Democrats have no more incentive to end the filibuster than republicans do. When republicans re-take the Senate, as they will inevitably do, then democrats will need it.

Anna Molly,

I agree, in this toxic environment we may also need to do unto others as they do unto us. Good point. Maybe something in the middle may work?? Don't know above my pay grade.

It's not gonna happen. The dem's want to keep it around as a tool in their toolbox just like the pub's do. The ranks of the dem's are filled with disconnected, financially insulated pigs just like the pub's. Just seems the pub's are just fine with showing that they are pigs.

Anna Molly:

Are we going to dialogue on a different topic today? I do agree that the Democrats will not hold the majority indefinitely. And there will be a day when the Democrats wished they hadn't changed the rules. But leaving to 60 vote threshold as it is only stops forward movement and the opportunity for change.

Secondly, on the short term, the republicans will not take back the senate for some time. In 2010 the Dems will lose a few seats, but they will likely gain a seat or two also. They certainly will not lose the majority.

Bag Boy is into wishful thinking. But lets wait and see in November.

As much as I hate to think of it I believe we'll be stuck with this mess until one party or the other clearly gains the upper hand. At that point the opposition party will fall back to a position of bargaining to get what they can, but not trying to put a stranglehold on the whole operation. As evidence I submit the Republicans post Civil War and FDR-era into the 1970s, and Democrats in the early 1900s and post-Reagan.

Jody: Thank you for using some of your December 09 prediction. You made a good point that over August vacation some Senators will be working on some of the rule changes. To get 51 votes the changes will likely be reasonable, but right now the 60 vote threshold is unreasonable.

Ron, I look forward to this happening. The current Republican "obstructionism" the lefty liberals are now whining about incessantly was born of the Dems abusing the fillibuster during the Bush admin.

I look forward to enjoying the lefty liberal whining when the Senate majority goes back to the Republican's.

Ron-

My reference to election day was not intended to suggest that the Senate will flip to Republican majority...I consider that unlikely at the moment. The House is another matter entirely, and a separate discussion.

The Republicans will narrow the gap in the the Senate...by exactly how much, no one knows. Any narrowing of the current Democrat margin lessens what what was already an extremely outside chance of any change in the filibuster procedure.

Neither party is going to end the filibuster.

Neither party has sufficient incentive to do so...however much anguished hand-wringing Tom Harkin engages in.

It's all kabuki...meaningless, ritual political posturing.

Myth,

"The current Republican "obstructionism" the lefty liberals are now whining about incessantly was born of the Dems abusing the fillibuster during the Bush admin."

Per Joe in Albany

Fact,

Previous filibuster record 99-2002 = 58 held by the Republicans

New Record 2009-2010 = 77 held by the Republicans

Ron ~ Whatever topic you want.

Glen,

From 1994 - 2006 while the Democrats were the minority party there were 424 motions for closure, or about 35 per year on average. When the Republicans became the minority party in 2006 we had 242 motions for clouture. This is almost 3X as many.

This information is directly from the U.S. Senate web site.

Thanks US Navy for the additional info,

Joe in Albany just throws out soundbites and he never goes back in history. i have a feeling he is fairly young.

Will you two get your stories straight. One of you is saying the R's were in the minority "99-2002" and the other is saying the D's were in the minority "1994-2006". My recollection is that the D's were in the minority 1995-2006.

Of course, that could just be propaganda from the Satan channel, Fox News.

LOL!!!

Mixed Bag:

Thank you for your reasonable comments...and reasonable comments deserve a response. I agree that neither party is willing to give up the filibuster. And we are on the same page that it is unlikely that the Senate will flip to a Republican majority. In my opinion, the House is a toss-up. The Dems will hold the majority by just a few votes.

My point is simply at the beginning of a new Congress, the rules are reviewed and historically, there have been changes to the senate filibuster rules. I think it will happen again in January, 2011. It is not just the threshold of 60 votes that will change, but allowing anonomous senators to hold up appointments, and other rules will likely change also.

I appreciate your comments. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I think our President said that.

Joe, that's why i thanked him for the additional information. it was a quick look and my bad.

not sure what you are laughing at unless your pants are down. because your initial argument makes no sense at all.

The democrats were in the minority from for the 12 years between 1994 and 2006. I think that was Congressional Sessions 104 (1995-96), 105 (97-98), 106 (99-2000), 107 (2001-02), 108(2003-04) and 109 (2005-06). The dems have control for Congressional Sessions 110 and the current 111. I am not sure about 103rd congressional session that covered 1993 &1994 what the split was. The orginal post several weeks back was from the period 1994-2006 (12 years) taking that the election year was 1994 so the first count point would be the new session 1995-1996.

. Mother Hubbard has cooked up a big old stew in the G

ulf pot. Right now she’s got it on slow simmer on the back of the stove hoping that you are going forget that you saw her put a dash of arsenic in there with the other spices. Looks like we have a lot of friends in the natural world that are making the ultimate sacrifice to remind us in the only way that they can that that the arsenic isn’t going to go away anytime soon. They can see it even if we can’t. I’m hoping that that sacrifice won’t be in vain and we keep listening.

Day 101 and still counting. Sorry my fingers slipped this morning

IR:

It's important to keep this issue alive. The work in the Gulf is not near done. BP will continue to minimize the amount of spillage so the government should not let BP off the hook.

I.R. Another fine one. Ron is right, keeping this topic center stage is important.

Add to the Gulf's troubles, the tug boat that struck a well head spewing more oil into the environmentally sensitive bay causing even more harm and pain for Louisiana. Add Michigan's pipeline break with oil spewing into the river stopping recreational use, fishing, and threatening wildlife as well as drinking water.

Something most of us give little thought to was discussed last night on MSNBC. There are some 200,000 miles of oil pipelines criss-crossing this country. An average of 100 leaks occur each year contaminating land, water and harming wildlife. Oil leaks are so routine, they rarely make the national news. Maybe if every single one of those leaks and the aftermath was given as much news attention as the BP disaster, Americans would DEMAND cap and trade NOW and a rapid shift to clean, renewable energy NOW.

Yes, Ron...I agree. Keep the issue alive.

Just as the Obama Administration has kept the health care reform issue alive.

Pollster.com's current average of Obama's job approval on health care: 43.6% approve-50.7% disapprove

Pollster.com's current average of the public's view of the health care reform bill passed by Democrats in Congress, and signed into law by President Obama: 40.1% favor-46.8% oppose.

Given the public's dismal view of the handling of the Gulf oil catastrophe by the Obama Administration, as a conservative, I hope this issue is very much kept alive.

But, I'm guessing that the Administration would be happy to have it quietly fade away...with less than 100 days before the midterm elections.

Well it is still alive.

One of the local news agencies had a couple of experts go out to the beaches around here and, using ultraviolet light, showed the oil residue still in the sand and water. The sand 'looked' fine but the oil residue and dust from pulverized tar balls showed up when the light was shown on it. Local beach go'ers were freaked out about it.

It's going to be a while before I eat gulf shrimp or local oysters again. Even if the local gov's say it's safe, how can you really believe them? I'm really depressed over the whole thing...

M. Saw on the local news a couple of days ago on a report about oysters that 60% of them that are sold up on the Bay are from the Gulf so I sympathize. Hopefully in the future the folks up here on the Chesapeake will be able to send a little knowledge down there to help out since they've been working for the last ten years or so to build the local oyster population up since we all pretty much destroyed the industry up here with pollution quite a while ago. If A bunch of strange talking Watermen show up down there don't run 'em off their just trying to help. Can't help much with the shrimp we don't have them in the Bay

Thanks for staying on this, IR. We're all too prone to forget what the media does not keep right in front of our noses. Why would anyone think that this was over just because the leaking has stopped. In my opinion, this is just the end of the beginning.

I heard some sad stories yesterday about the dispersants and their likely effects on dolphins and other animals. The whole purpose of the dispersants, which are just as toxic as the oil, was to hide the oil from view. If they've done their intended job, they've just made it that much harder to clean up the toxicity, but they haven't done anything to eliminate it.

Please keep us informed on this. We appreciate it.

****************

Shiny object, Bag Boy. You just want to change the subject.

"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

Dick Cheney

Joe in Albany,

The only thing ridiculous around here is you.

Couldn't agree with you more US Navy!!

I see your Fox channel was off the air last night Joe. You didn't get your talking points for today so you just start babbling with a talking point from 6 years ago. Typical teabagger.

Well, Joe. The words "under God" were not even in the Pledge until 1954. It was written in 1892 by a baptist minister. The words were added in 1954 after pressure from the Knights of Columbus and other religious origanizations. I know this is true because I had to RELEARN the Pledge of Allegiance. That group, and others who have tried, was attempting to have the Pledge returned to its original version.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Excellent Pat:

In the face of considerable criticism and accusations of socialism, President Obama supported the auto industry. Today we have two clear survivers. Republicans can take no credit for the success of Ford and GM. It was the government who required GM to replace its management, provide financial support so the company can get back on its feet. Strange, I don't hear the Republicans call it "Government Motors" any more. With the coming of the new electric "Volt" General Motors will again stand on it's own two feet. Capitalism works best when greed is minimized. When will Republicans ever learn that lesson.

Hey Pat,

I was watching CNN yesterday evening and they mentioned something about Mass trying to do away the electoral vote and going with the popular vote.

They also said that it's becoming a big heated item. I'm just curious because no one has really said anything about it. Plus that was the first time I heard about it.

Excellent post as well Ron to you. I guess the media has decided to concentrate on the negative. That's fine. We'll just have to concentrate on the positive. And there is positive out there, with still quite a ways to go. But little by little we'll get there.

Here's hoping everybody learned something and that we never find ourselves in this position ever again. But I doubt it. Attention spans and greed in this country are a deadly combination.

President Obama and his Administration did not sidestep these problems. They met them head on realistically whether the GOP likes to believe it or not. And all the while the GOP did nothing to help.

Not one damn thing.

TRR, I hadn't heard about that. Will do some checking. Thank you for the information.

That thing you mentioned about Mass doing away with the electoral college isn't in force yet.

Even if Gov. Patrick has signed it (and I don't know if he has or not), it still requires enough states to adopt it so that these states add up to 270 electoral votes before it can come into force.

I would love to see the Electoral College abolished. It seems incredibly archaic and reduces the importance of so-called "safe" states. After all, isn't a Presidential election about the nation, not just some swing states and states with high numbers of electoral votes?

Pat anytime!!!!

It shouldn't come as a shock that I'm no fan of the Bush Administration, but when you listen to Economists and look at the facts it's hard to make a case that they didn't have to take some strong action to salvage the banking system. On the one hand it bothers me that they handed the hot potato of the auto industry off to the new guy, but on the other hand Team Obama probably got a better deal for the American people than the Team Bush would have. Except of course for the escalation in cost due to inaction.

Good post as usual Pat, thanks.

As I understood it from the nightly news, all electoral votes in MA would go to the winner of the popular vote. Seems pretty basic.

Sorry folks, but the Electory College is essential to American politics. It provides a mandate to rule in a close election, which we seem to have more and more of in this counrty. Further, by going with a popular vote you would only see presidential candidates campaigning in populous states i.e New York, California, Texas, and Florida.

If MA does this, it will effectively end forever the possibility of anyone getting the presidency without winning the popular vote. Massachussetts is a large state, and its electoral votes would be almost certain to give the election to the popular vote winner. If they had had this law in 2000, we'd be evaluating how well President Gore did during his term in office.

@Ben:

So you're saying a 271 electoral victory is a better mandate than 51% of the popular vote?

@Houston:

It's not in force yet. Enough states equalling 270 electoral votes must sign it into law before it comes into effect.

The Electoral College is an outdated rule from when it took weeks to months for voting results to come in and it allowed the party bigwigs to make the decisions, just like the Senate did not used to be voted on by the public. It is one rule that needs to be tossed out on it's ear because it has lost it's meaning and only serves to upset what the majority of the populace really wants for what the Party leaders want.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of the electoral college. I voted for the winner in 2000 but my vote was not counted because Oklahoma is a "winner take all" state and since Bush did well here he got all of our paltry few electoral votes. PLEASE get rid of the electoral college, NOW!

I've been told by a very smart friend of mine it would be disasterous for both political parties if the electoral system were to be discarded because all their strategies (both parties) are based on this system and they are very sophisticated.

Sorry Marc, I don't care, I'm tired of my vote not being counted just because I'm in a Red state.

PEACE

It seems a punctuation mark is more thought provoking to some...and waaaay easier to pile on...

dangerfield - That just might be one of the most profound, thought-provoking posts I've ever read here. Concise and to the point, but with a lot of room for interpretation. I voted! :)

Now this is the kind of posting we like to see from dangerfield. It's the first honest post he's ever done. It shows what is actually between his ears.

yes, deep. can't wait for the rebuttal and follow up.

I think he was trying to show the Repubs actual ideas and platform, pretty well summed up I believe!

And some of the most intelligent and witty responses ever!

Think you dangerfield, we were doubting you even knew what intelligent and witty were, but now we can see we're getting through to you. A little less Fox and more FR and you'll be as intelligent and witty as the rest of us.

When someone doesn't even know which set of stock insults to use (I watch PBS and READ, and attempt to reply to people with a modicum of civility, hence I am condescending and think I'm smarter than everyone else, ("WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!" thanks to CA) get with the program!) when they are pointlessly (or .-lessly...) attacking me, it is REALLY hard to take anything from that source seriously...yes "wit" abounds on this blog, almost as much as intelligent discourse and common courtesy...

Rick If I use the number of folks I've seen running around for the last two years with thier Fruit of the Looms in a seroius wad I'd say that those folks heve been able to increase thier market share by about a hundred per cent. Glad to see that they've decided to spread the increased profit around a little instead of sitting on it like most of the rest are.

Rick:

I'm thrilled Feisty is up first. It means I can "rest" a bit, which is a good thing for an older guy. Is it time to go watch "The View"?

IR,

Thanks for that "Fruit of the Looms in a wad" visual!

lol

LOL, Ron, I hear ya on Us needing some Rest. I posted that statement to head off the Stampede of Ignorance, AKA- The RightWingTalibanBibleThumpingTeapartiers, from making some idiotic comment regarding That.

It seems to have worked!

Mission Accomplished, where's my Flight suit?

Jody:

You wrote an excellent post yesterday PM. I agree with JoAnne that it should come up again today.

"distractions continue to confront the White House in what has been the spring/summer of its discontent"...

Discontent? For whom? The msm just loves to rile things up! Hell, they love to 'rile it up' any way they can... If the situation is minor, it can be made MAJOR with the right headline...

Jody - excellent post. This is one of the few times I have ever agreed with President Bush (Jr.) was when he wanted to reform immigration and was doing all he could to fulfill that promise. I see blaming President Obama for EVERYTHING is a common theme in all blogs, not just this one.

I also see that you have noticed what I have about the GOPers. They do nothing and whine about everything, and their constituents blame President Obama. Why aren't these same people holding THEIR representation to the same standard they hold President Obama?

Maybe its because they KNOW their representation sucks and are mad because they voted them into office and are too ashamed to admit it.

Jody,

last night it was watching CNN and FOX, i flip between each channel on commercials. i hate to say this but here we go, this whole illegal immigration problem is being put upon the back of the Mexicans or those who come from central America. according the crime statics put out be the FBI(a non liberal agency) tells us that crime along the boarder and boarder city's and towns has been a a steady decline for 4 years. this year it is at it lowest in years, in fact crime in the US is down over the last 2 years.

Has any body gave thought to the illegal Chinese immigrant, or the Polish, Russian. of the 12 million illegals how many are Mexican, Chinese, Russian Polish. you know we don't have 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants. we have illegals that are from every where. but fox news last night made it known that every illegal here is from Mexico. 12 million, they were saying that we can deport the 12 million illegals back to Mexico over a 3 year period.

see where i'm going, lets see this for what this is, Mexican are being singled out because of race. think about it, the Russian mob is dangerous but all we here in the media(all the media) is the Mexicans. there causing all these problems so we need to get rid of them.

the crime stacts are a sign to me and should be to everybody that if the crime in AR, TX, CA is going down and more illegals are being caught at the boarder and once they are here more are being deported them why in god is AR doing this, its about race.

i don't here them complain about the white illegals, like i said before, Russian, Chinese, polish, Arabic country's. you don't here about it.

to me AR is acting like a bunch of bigoted. i could be wrong but last nights news programs to showed me this is not about crime, Illegals, boarder security, ITS ALL ABOUT RACE!!!!!!

Jeff 1541632: If you think it's so safe, go pitch your tent on the border and camp there. IF you come back alive, let us know how it was.

dirt-303814

Jeff 1541632: If you think it's so safe, go pitch your tent on the border and camp there. IF you come back alive, let us know how it was.

as my mom always said, it takes brains to read and understand.

you completely miss my point. of course. if the FBI crime statics are saying crime is and has been going down, then why is AR Governor doing this, is her state police force not doing there jobs, because according to FBI crime stactics crime is going down. my real point is that every is acting like ALL illegals are from mexico. there not. so this is not about mexican illegals, this is about AR wanting to get rid of the brown people or trying to embarrass the current administration or both.

dirt-303814

Also I'm not saying its safe, the FBI is saying it.

Our (D) Mayor here in Denver has been accused of creating a "santuary city". This phrase seems to be bandied about pretty freely these days. Denver turned over 10% more illegals last year than previously. This year I believe they're on track for a 50% increase. The Feds are indicating they've deported 10% more illegals this year...they expect 25% more next. Now if these % are anywhere near the actual numbers, I see this administration taking our laws very seriously. I understand...this is only one piece of a complex puzzle.

Because the loose attack term "sanctuary city" doesn't actually require a city to do ANYTHING, except let the Federal government enforce immigration law. The "sanctuary cities" are saying it's the Feds job to deal with immigration, the same argument the DOJ is taking in AZ.

Obama has some good people advising him, and he has some bad ones also, the Obama Administrations theory on the Progressives is "who else are they going to support", I suppose there is some truth to that, but then you have people like me that done what they could to help the Dem's and Obama get elected who don't consider themselves Progressives or purists to any party or ideology. I see the health care reform legislation as a total failure, quite frankly everyone knows without the Public Option you have nothing in the bill to cause any reform to take place, that was always Obama's position also, but he signed a mandate to buy insurance with no competition or price controls into law and then tried to brag about it, that doesn't sit well with me. Same thing with Financial Reform although it was not near the failure Health Care Reform was. Now you hear the rumblings of not letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire for those making over $200,000, another issue Obama campaigned forcefully on, and I fear that the panel that is looking at ways to trim the deficit is going to want to balance the budget on the working mans back, from where I stand looks like the wealthy have went through this recession thus far without having to feel any pain what so ever, hard for me and folks like me to get too revved up about November, Obama and the Dem's best do something that makes people like me think they need to get out and vote in November, because right now "I ain't feel'in it".

You've got to hand it to the far right extremists: they do show great creativity in dreaming up evil schemes. I myself would have never thought of taxing the poor so that the needy rich can have their tax cuts. Not in a million years.

Houston,

If I wasn't alive to see it for myself, I wouldn't believe it either.

According to the "conventional wisdom" in this country, bought to us by the corporate owned and operated news media, the great mistreated entity in our society today is corporations facing the perils of "uncertainty".

Who knew.

NASH,

Great post, I watch that exchange yesterday. I do not have any answer why some people have to demonize those less fortunate than them. Maybe they are so insecure in their own lives that they feel a sense of power belittling those who cannot defend themselves. That is why the democrats are the party for the people. Many of those people that do this degridation confuse wealth, power and greed with compassion, understanding, integrity.

I quess I am saying there is no set answer.

Here's your green star, Nash. It just boggles my mind that the only truly mistreated entities in our society today are corporations, rich people, white men, and Christians. As far as anyone else is concerned it's blame the victim or "too bad for you, I got mine."

I'm where I am because I worked HARD to get here and continue to work HARD to get here. That said it wouldn't have happened without getting a hand up repeatedly. Relatives who floated me a little cash when I was really desperate, people who I didn't even know had put in a good word on a prospective job, others who cut me a little slack when I didn't deserve it. Contrary to popular mythology there's no such thing as a self made man.

John B,

Thanks for the vote and your comment . . . I am really baffled by the drive to demonize the disadvantaged in this country.

As usual Nash - you hit it out of the park! John's - Houston's & Retired's follow up is the icing on the cake!

Cream Cheese of course! lol

I had no less than three comments yesterday disappear into the ether on this very topic.

There but for the grace of G-d goes any ONE of us. Despair knows no political affiliation; but the down trodden somehow 'deserve' their lot; while the pious and righteous have some how EARNED their way.

If it weren't for social programs in this country - more than 1/2 of all college graduates wouldn't have diplomas. Low interest student loans are a social program. And yet, many believe they "put" themselves through college. They use the services this great country has to offer EVERY day and never give a thought or a care as to how it availed itself to them - the mighty whom have never fallen. Those bootstraps that many are yanking on often occur thanks to the generosity of a BLUE state that pays more federal taxes INTO the system so a lot of those little red states can TAKE more out of the system. And never do we get an acknowledgment of the big picture. We are our brother's keeper. We ALL benefit when we ALL are lifted up to our potential. Keeping a boot on the throat of the poor man just makes you seem small and petty. Why does villifying the minority (homosexuals, immigrants) make so many others FEEL better about themselves?

These are the mysteries of Religion and Life that I simply DO NOT understand. I'd rather have my value system over their selfishness any day of the week.

Someone asked the old, tired question about "When is the last time a Poor person offered you a job?" My reply was that if an unemployed person showed up at the door of a poor person asking for some work so he could eat, the poor person was more likely to find some chores that needed done and give the unemployed person a meal and a few bucks to get by on because he has been there himself. While a rich person would be more likely to chase the 'vagrant' off his property and call the cops. While the poor person may not have a lot he is more likely to share what he does have, if he can, because he knows what it is like to have nothing at all!

Thanks for your input Feisty, B. Honest, and Clara . . . "What Would Jesus Do?" has apparently gone out of style for the situationally religious . . . sad how low folks are willing to sink in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Clara - I couldn't help thinking about Jill, Tulsa and her incessant WHINING about her student loans! ;0)

Great post!

Amen, Sister Feist, AMEN!

Matthews has been trying to become Beck light for the last year. Nothing ever gets said on his show, it's just a bunch of guests and Matthews trying to talk over each other for an hour.

Houston, deportation is only one part of it. If the border were secure, then they wouldn't be here. If we truly "made it hurt" for employers who hire illegals, they wouldn't be here.

Ronald Reagan's job approval poll numbers were about 10 points lower than Obama's are right now, so I guess Reagan wasn't much of a leader. But of course, public opinion is never wrong. It just changes at the drop of a hat, usually based on simplistic reasons.

...and, while you're exhuming dead guys, what were Millard Fillmore's poll numbers?...:)

G. W. Bush's poll numbers were once in the high 90s but were in the low 30s when he was in office. Bush is still alive and kicking, so is that good enough illustration that publlic opinion is fickle? Or will Dangerfield come up with some other stupid reason to avoid acknowledging that fact?

dangerfield:

A good leader has to have people that want to be led and who willing to work hard, sacrafice, compromise, participate and not act as leaden weights around the necks of those willing to move forward, even if at times the direction provided by the leader requires that the people take one step back in order to properly readjust and find that path that allows them to take two steps forward.

I vote for " some other STUPID reason" haha...Yes, I must admit, Bush is alive..

Who cares what anyone's poll #'s were? Consumer confidence is down. Right track wrong track is 2 to one in the negative. Dredge up any numbers you like and shoot as many angry "STUPID" holes into the messenger as assuages your anger. It doesn't bend the curve of reality.

people have to stop trying to attack the numbers they don't like and the people who post them.

Dangerfield sez:

Dredge up any numbers you like and shoot as many angry "STUPID" holes into the messenger as assuages your anger. It doesn't bend the curve of reality.

I wasn't "attacking the messenger". I was attacking the stupidity of the message. Of course poll numbers have to be taken into account by political leaders, but they are not the be-all and end-all. They have little bearing on Obama's leadership skills, which he's shown are formidable to anyone paying attention. Maybe he should be doing regular "fire side chats" like FDR used to have to connect more with the people, but of course then the media would attack him as being overexposed.

BTW: Germany has all that dreaded "European socialism," which might explain why Germans are more satisfied with the way things are going.

Apparently YOU care what the poll numbers are. You keep bringing up the subject, you just don't like the responses. If polls are important they're only important in context, which includes historical context. You're always complaining that the discussion lacks nuance, talking about things in a vacuum isn't nuance.

Another fact: Historians are ranking Obama 15th among US presidents. But I'm sure their opinions aren't of any value compared to polls that Dangerfield dredges up in his Obama-bashing pursuits.

houston!

Again, polls that reinforce your beliefs are worthwhile, polls that don't are dredged up and stupid...

If Obama was ranked last in the poll you're riding, would you have posted the poll? Would the opinion of those STUPID historians matter to you? Of course not. You have to take the bitter with the sweet. If you want to shoot the messenger, and yes that is what you did, they aren't MY poll numbers, it's just silly to counter with another poll. That doesn't make any sense. Nor does the poll; as someone who loves facts...

"The Siena College poll, which surveyed 238 presidential scholars at U.S. colleges and universities, asked scholars to rate the nation’s 43 chief executives on 20 attributes ranging from legislative accomplishments to integrity and imagination"

Sounds very scientific, no?
"Obama’s 15th ranking is slightly higher than other presidents who have taken office since the poll started nearly 30 years ago. Most start out at about number 20, said Siena statistics professor and poll director Douglas Lonnstrom.

“[Obama’s] doing a little better, but he’s generally in the same ballpark,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39283.html

Even "W" was in that same Ballpark...lol

Dangerfield "Again, polls that reinforce your beliefs are worthwhile, polls that don't are dredged up and stupid..."

Again, Dangerfield, you are lying. I never made any such statement. In fact, I even said that polls are something that politicians need to take into account. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

As for Bush's ranking, Dangerfield's definition of a "ballpark" may be different than other peoples. Bush was ranked 23, according to the article he quoted. That's 8 positions behind Obama and it was also after 9/11 and before his disastrous misadventure in Iraq and his bungled Afghanistan war when his public approval ratings were the highest. As Obama is only 2 years into his first term, it goes without saying that his ranking is certain to change for good or ill with time. But I'll say it anyway for Dangerfield's benefit, since he'd probably attack me for not pointing out this obvious fact.

"Bush was ranked 23, according to the article he quoted. That's 8 positions behind Obama"

(and in your mind) That completely debunks the quote from the article...

"Obama’s 15th ranking is slightly higher than other presidents who have taken office since the poll started nearly 30 years ago. Most start out at about number 20..."

The best humor is unintentional, unlike say attacks...:)

Oh, and I am lying again..about something. And my civility is worse than your sarcasm and pathological need for confrontation...

doesn't the ad say that if one lasts more than 4 hours, you should call your dr? The one you have for me has lasted waaaay longer than that...lol

Eric,

I have to disagree about the DEA, they have actually kept the price artificially high. I used to know growers that would send them money every year just so they WOULD keep the prices high thus they made more money off from less product. But you are right, it IS time to legalize and tax pot, it is MUCH less dangerous than alcohol and is generally socially acceptable, very few people other than the law enforcement types get upset with it at all (and even a lot of them do not even bother with pot anymore, unless they have to), especially since it has become a legal medicine in 17 states. Cutting costs by sending fewer people to prison over a few grams of pot would go a long ways towards freeing up more money for the schools let alone the added income from the taxes. We can hope that sanity overcomes the naysayers on this one!

Shouldn't the Tea Party people be all for legalizing pot? Isn't that just the kind of personal freedom that Libertarianism is all about? Or does this get right to center of the problem with the Tea Party movement?

The Tea Party has an identity problem. They don't know what they stand for. They've got die hard Libertarians that are all for Gay rights and legalized drugs, and they also have religious zealots that want to force all Americans to attend an Evangelical Mega Church every Sunday and hate on Gays. I'm starting to think that the Tea Party is just a front to convince the ignorant masses to support lowering taxes for the rich.

Did Eric just admit to committing a felony on this board? Is this an example of one of those types of laws that people can pick and choose to ignore?

And to think that I thought all of the commenters on here were all good, law-abiding citizens.

Chris,

Since Eric lives in California, where they have a medical marijuana program, he may well have his Medical Marijuana Card, which would allow him to LEGALLY buy pot for his own personal use due to whatever medical condition that it may help with.

Hi, B!

While that may be true, somehow I don't think that's the case here with my buddy Eric. (Unless, of course, they prescribe medical marijuana for mental illnesses now. Just messing with you, Eric!)

yeah, he's crazy all right; but my favorite campaign promise of his was where he said if you voted for him he'd personally pardon any state law crime you may commit. Is that even legal to promise? He did tout 'guns for all' - so if you were Darwin enough to stay alive,...I guess the criminal aspect would be the least of your worries.

Nash,

You were right on yesterday. He was trying to split hairs to justify his misinfromed position. The facts that are readily available support our position. When they got beat of that they turn to how they create jobs. Another piece of misinformation.

Excerpts from The Job Machine Grinds to a Halt by Harold Meyerson.

The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically

Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.

Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money under the mattress. More important, they're sitting pretty as profits rise.

This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more -- the highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring such things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed were jobless for more than six months. America's private-sector job machine -- the marvel of the world since 1940 -- has clanged to a halt, and there's no place for it in corporations' new business model.

The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn't likely to be driven by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts make no sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash. Targeted tax cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring within the United States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The Obama administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the manufacture of green technology here at home, and congressional Democrats will soon unveil legislation creating further incentives for domestic manufacturing.

Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but also the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new jobs. A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), could leverage significant private capital to begin America's rebuilding, though the idea has encountered rough sledding in (surprise) the Senate.

What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill the gap, the era of American prosperity is history

Thank you very much for posting that U.S. Navy . . . very interesting . . . and it explains so much of what we are seeing in our current economy.

Nashville,

We are indeed living not in a democratic republic but rather a plutocracy. We are speedilybecoming the serfs of the multi-national corporations. This is happening with the help of many conservative supreme courts throughout our history.

The thing we must worry about most is this plutocracy morphing into a theocracy. Then those crying about the "socialistic" programs of the current administration will understand the true evil of a totalitarian society.

Nash, on the flipside, why are we paying "unearned income tax credits" to people who have no income? I don't like that some (not all) corporations sometimes don't pay much. That's why I favor a flat tax. If you make it, you pay. But, until the tax laws are changed, you can't vilify corporations and individuals and accuse of them breaking the law for making prudent use of the tax code.

And let us not forget Eric, Simpleton Sarah has endorsed Cruella F_Up_rina.

Prosecuting crack cocaine at 50 times the penalty of powdered cocaine is the law of the land. Denial of same sex partners marrying is the Law of the Land, arrest for possession of marijuana is the law of the land. The Law of the Land is often wrong, and often ignored for just that reason. What does polling and the sorry state of journalism have to do with blindly adhering to this often outmoded, and sometimes punitive or even discriminatory, "law of the land"?

dangerfield,

I agree with you!

:o)

My point is that the poll is largely irrelevent. . . .but you knew that, right?

P.S. Did you hear that the Congress voted to reduce the crack cocain versus cocaine discrepency?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/cocaine-sentencing-injust_b_663263.html

Absolutely true. LBJ famously said in what were private, inner-circle remarks at the time that passage of the Civil Rights Act would cost Democrats the South for at least a generation. In reality it's been two generations, but that still doesn't make it wrong.

Houston,

You beat me to the punch . . . I had just typed the words "Who the____— is Newt Gingrich?" moments ago . . . but the comment wouldn't go through.

Newt Gingrich is irrelevent. Period.

Good posts Nash and Houston. MSNBC needs to quit trying to get the teabaggers to tune in. We all know their 90% of cable news watchers and their not going to watch MSNBC, so get back to reporting the facts and truth, not teabagger lies.

John B:

A thought just came to mind. Why is Gingrich even giving a speech blasting the Obama administration? What is the point and what purpose is it serving other than to create or increase divisions among people in this country. Gingrich has not been elected to represent anyone. From what offical capacity is he giving his speech? We have a President, a system of governing, an opposition party whose members can express their concerns and complaints by way of their votes in Congress or to relay the same in communications with the administration. Why is a private citizen even being given air time to blast the administration? Do you get air time, me, anyone on this blog, to give a speech to the Amecian people?

CA,

Newton thinks if he keeps his name and rhetoric at fever pitch for another 7 months, when he tosses his hat into the Presidential race, he will have earned his way. He is as relevant as the Republican 'budget' Boehner presented last summer. Embarrassing to watch his struggle for 'leadership'. But hey, the Repubs are so desperate at this point, they will let ANYONE take the Mic.