Michele Bachmann's Path to the Nomination:

The stars are lining up in the heavens and the tea leaves are beginning to give-up their secrets. With only 51 days until the Iowa straw poll, it appears that fate will be very kind to Michele Bachmann. Her campaign war-chest is growing and those social conservatives in Iowa will pick Michele over Tim Pawlenty. The Mormon twins need not spend their money in Iowa as the evangelicals are not interested in religious beliefs they consider to be cult-like. As for Pawlenty, he will be on life-support, maybe to hang around for the next debate so he can attack Romney. If he gets a "do-over", he will attack the empty suit.

In New Hampshire the dynamics are quite different. The voters there are more open-minded and will evaluate moderate Republican positions. This will be the first of many show-downs between Huntsman and Romney. Actually Romney needs to win this election. Radio and TV stations in New Hampshire will be the big winners as that Republican money will flow like a river. I suspect the moderate Republican vote will split, thus opening the door for a Tea Party candidate. About this time ol' Mike Huckabee might wish he was running.

South Carolina is definitely a Tea Party state. The Mormon twins will pass and I expect the Tea Party will have their favorite candidate (Bachmann) who will win in South Carolina.

If you think New Hampshire was tough, it will be tougher in Florida. This could be the bell-weather state for Romney…And Huntsman knows that. Huntsman's campaign headquarters are in Florida and if he is a contender, Huntsman has to do well. The tea leaves are getting cloudy now and too much can happen between now and then, but I'm not putting my hard-earned money on Pawlenty, Romney or Huntsman. The Tea Party candidate could prevail.

Over the week end it appears the GOP/TP is bringing up Social Security again claiming that it is out of money and facing immediate demise. This is an outright lie and has been debunked as I have written almost one year ago on this site. Social Security as reported by the “Social Security Board of Trustees” in August 2010 will have enough money to pay full benefits (100%) until 2036-2037 and that estimate is based on the premise that we do absolutely NOTHING! The most conservative estimates give us 20 years to fix the problem. Even under the worse case of DOING NOTHING, Social Security will not go away. The benefits will be reduced to about 70-85% of the current benefits BUT NOT ZERO.

This argument again is being fostered by the fact that in 2010, for the first time since 1983 that Payroll Tax Revenues are less than the Beneficiaries payout by about $41 Billion Dollars. This is true; Social Security in 2010 will pay out more than what they took in as far as taxes go. This will also be true on 2011 and will continue until the economy and job markets improve. But what he GOP/TP is not telling you is that Social Security has a truest fund of about $2.6 Trillion dollars and that trust fund is earning interest. About $118 Billion Dollars, which exceeds the current shortfall of $41 Billion, meaning Social Security is still running at a surplus (net).

http://www.cbpp.org/files/8-13-10socsec.pdf

“ 2010 will mark the first year since 1983 in which the program’s total expenses (for benefits and administrative costs) exceed its tax income (from payroll taxes and income taxes that higher-income beneficiaries pay on a portion of their Social Security benefits). That temporary imbalance — which the actuaries peg at $41 billion in 2010 — results from the severe economic downturn and will shrink dramatically in 2011 and disappear in 2012, although a so-called cash deficit will return permanently in 2015 as the retirement of the baby boom accelerates. Throughout that period, however, the trust funds will continue to grow larger, primarily because of the interest income the trust funds will receive on the Treasury bonds they hold. Even in 2010, for example, the trustees estimate that the trust funds’ interest income of $118 billion will more than offset the cash deficit of $41 billion”.

“2025 will be the first year in which the program’s expenses exceed its total income, including its interest income. At that point, the trust funds — after peaking at $4.2 trillion — will start to shrink as Social Security begins to redeem its Treasury bonds to pay benefits”.

Social Security does have a problem with its “life expectancy” at “FULL BENEFITS” past the 2030’s. And this does need to be addressed and soon, just not today or in the most immediate future. But in no way is Social Security in jeopardy of going bankrupt in the next 20+ years.

From the above link: http://www.cbpp.org/files/8-13-10socsec.pdf

“By far the most important fiscal decision that Congress will face between now and in the near future is whether to extend the Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of the 2012. President Obama has proposed to let those cuts expire for Americans making over $250,000 a year. Some legislators have called for extending all of the tax cuts permanently; others have called for extending the high-income tax cuts temporarily on the grounds that they provide economic stimulus, though the Congressional Budget Office ranked this as the least effective of a large number of stimulus proposals. The revenue loss over the next 75 years just from extending the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 — the top 2 percent of Americans — would be about as large as the entire Social Security shortfall over this period (see Figure 1). Members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for people at the top are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat”.

People the GOP is going after Social Security (and Medicare/Medicaid big time). They want to hand Medicare over to the Private Insurance Industry and hand Social Security (and the $2.6 Trillion Dollar Trust Fund) over to Wall Street while totally destroying Medicaid. This is not good for America. What the GOP/TP is trying to do is pay off Wall Street, Big Business and the Millionaires and Billionaires at our expense

Impeach Thomas. That would be a start. There's others (you know who they are) that should be investigated also.

Good morning, Feisty.

Hopefully, that lying Crook Thomas will be forced to step down.

Hopefully, that lying Crook Thomas will be forced to step down

If Thomas had a shred of integrity - he would do so voluntarily!

Feisty:

Right on. There is no doubt that Justice Thomas is on the right wing payroll. If this was any other judge (not SCOTUS) he would be gone. The SCOTUS by their own admission ignore the rules of conduct, putting themselves above the very laws they are supposed to protect.

Only in the GOP/TP is deceit a virtue.

I'd sure believe that Soros site! NOT.

I'd sure believe that Soros site! NOT.

Like I said, before you start flinging arrows about the 'source' how about YOU refute the FACTS?

Annie - it's official, you're the first one who isn't up to the challenge! lol

Good morning, Navy.

You are 100% correct. It's a fact that Social Security is nowhere near broke. I don't know why people believe the broke lie. All they need to do is research and they would see the truth.

What should be done is do away with the caps on paying in. If someone make a million dollars a year they should have to pay the 6.2 or recently adjusted 4.2 percent on the whole million. However, business should not have to match after the cap.

So President Obama made it official. Hope and change is dead, just another empty campaign slogan. Barely two years into this presidency and it is clear we will return to, "Vote for me, I'm the lesser of two evils." I'm angry. I'm furious. I'm hurt.

For a short time, I knew exactly what Michelle Obama meant when she talked about her feeling of pride. I knew exactly what Chris Matthews meant when he talked about the tingle he felt. I felt that thrill, that pride, along with millions of other Americans who believed and who hoped that we were truly going to see change. Last night, it took the President less than 15 minutes to kill that pride.

I have stood with this guy, defended him, even when I questioned his actions, because I just knew there was a grand end game. He opened the door for single-payer and he clearly exposed the health insurance companies for the vultures they are. We got the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay law, he paid attention to veterans, he put two women on the Supreme Court - and yes, that's important, because women DO have a different perspective from men. He understood that our education system is a disaster. Yes, there was some very good stuff.

But this! This damned intervention in Afghanistan. Right up until this very moment, no one has given us a reason for our intervention that withstands even lightweight scrutiny. Al-Qaeda? For all practical purposes - it's gone. The Taliban? For Americans they are over-the-top crazies, bent on keeping women in chains. For many Afghanis, that is a legitimate way of life. Nation building? Why not? We've been so successful in Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, and who can forget that stunning success - Iraq?

Nope, we're staying and we get the "Two John" justification. John McCain and John Kerry have somehow attained credibility based on the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time - they're now experts. They tell us that if we leave, if we set a target date, well, the bad guys - whoever they are - will just wait until we're gone.

Here's how that shakes out. We invade a country because - well, let's say we don't like the burqas the oppressed women have to wear. We send in our troops and we tell the bad guys, "We hate burqas and if we tell you when we're going to leave and return control of YOUR country to you, you'll just wait until we leave and overturn our burqa ban. Well put this in your pipe and smoke it. We're staying forever." Brilliant.

If this is really about maintaining a staging area or a base where we can keep troops who are watching the disaster we call Pakistan, then dammit, tell us. That is the only remotely logical reason for our continued presence in Afghanistan.

For me, Afghanistan is just the final straw. There's more. I wonder why so many bankers got a free pass after they damned near killed the world. Why is the President afraid to say marriage is whatever the married partners say it is? Why is he afraid to say the LBGT community has rights identical to those of everyone else? Why doesn't he admit that the War on Drugs is a failure. For a smart guy, he sure seems to miss the fact that no one ever wins any kind of war.

I won't sit out this election. That's simply not an option. More than likely, I will even vote for him. The Republicans are Obama's best friend(s) right now. The simple-minded Tea Partiers, the Teabangelicals, the misnamed Pro-Lifers, and the misogynists who control the G.O.P. will not allow a reasonable candidate to represent the party. They are just plain scary - The American Taliban.

So, I will hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, just as I did in the ten elections prior to the one in which I voted for Obama. Thanks for that hope and change.

Because a site throws out statements does not make them FACTS, so there is no need to even acknowledge them. Besides, it is not on topic. Let's discuss it when MSNBC.com puts up a story about Justice Thomas.

How about this one from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?_r=1

It seems that Obama is taking the middle road on a lot of issues lately.

This is Obama in full campaign mode. Don't stir up any controversy about any issue. That could cost him votes.

Where his "base" expects him to take a stand, he will normally make a speech, starting with the maxim..."Make no mistake" and then moving on, with a few ambiguous phrases tossed out, so no one can quite figure out what the hell he actually said. The "safe" middle road. Try to keep both sides content for now, if not actually happy.

Everything he says, or does, is carefully weighed on the balance scale of votes. Never mind leading. That doesn't matter. Just votes.

Deflect all blame...always. Nothing is EVER his fault. Nothing.

Because a site throws out statements does not make them FACTS, so there is no need to even acknowledge them.

Even though Judge Thomas's spokesperson confirms he was in Palm Springs - we suppose to believe Benny because HE says different! LMAO

Sorry, Benny I'll discuss Judge Thomas and his unethical activites anytime I want to!

You see, I DON'T need YOUR permission! ;o)

To supplement Feisty's recitation of facts about Clarence Thomas, I offer these citations to the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which doesn't apply directly to the Supreme Court, but it is the code of conduct adopted in most states for their own judiciaries:

First, the general rule:

RULE 1.2

Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

And now, the specific rule:

RULE 2.4

External Influences on Judicial Conduct

(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.

(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.

(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.

If you review Feisty's facts, in light of these rules, which all other judges have to live by, you find that there is plenty of extant information to support a finding that Justice Thomas (either directly or through his relationship with his wife) has, at the very least, engaged in conduct that "convey[s] the impression" of partiality.

Appearance of conflict -- not just actual conflict -- has always been the standard for lawyers. It is a great pity that a justice of the United States Supreme Court doesn't feel at all obliged to abide by the same ethical rules that all lawyers and all judges must follow.

Just remember that, when you say something in support of Thomas, you are sanctioning clearly unethical conduct by a justice of the highest court in this country. You are, in the name of political expediency and ideology, promoting lawlessness.

Be proud.

But what he GOP/TP is not telling you is that Social Security has a truest fund of about $2.6 Trillion dollars and that trust fund is earning interest. About $118 Billion Dollars, which exceeds the current shortfall of $41 Billion, meaning Social Security is still running at a surplus (net).

Are you really that big of a dummy? Or do you just play one on TV? So tell us about the $2.6 trillion in the trust fund, Navy Vet. Tell us where the cash is. Wait, I'll help you out -- there is no cash. That $2.6 trillion exists as IOUs in the form of Treasury bonds. And when the Social Security folks trot over to the Treasury to redeem those bonds in the near future, guess what? Treasury won't have the cash to pay them off. Sooooooooo, what happens then is either taxes are raised, benefits are cut, more debt is issued, or some combination thereof in order for Treasury to cover the their obligations.

None of those options are pleasant, and all of those options speak directly to the FRAUD of the Social Security trust fund: it's nothing more than a paper charade based on an accounting artifice. You do understand how federal trust funds work, don't you? You do understand that the Social Security trust fund is not an economic asset that can be drawn down to pay benefits, don't you? If not, maybe this explanation from OMB will help you out:

"These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures—but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits." [p. 337 in the link below]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/pdf/spec.pdf

You are so far out to lunch on this issue it's pathetic. Either have no clue, or you're just a major league liar. Which is it?

Feisty - As always...wea all enjoy your "warmth" and as usual, we are once again all humbled buy your "cut & paste" skills here however, how is Clarence Thomas relevant in the grand scheme of things.....why are you spending so much time trying to dig up dirt on this man? Shouldn't you be working that same "angle" with Michele Bachman instead or maybe Newt Gingrich? Shouldn't we be taking abotu why Bernanke things our economy will stink well into 2012 with uenmploymenet still hovering around 9%? Isn't that more important?

Ben:

Because a site throws out statements does not make them FACTS, so there is no need to even acknowledge them.

An old rhetorical trick, and a bad one. When the facts are against you, deny the facts and change the subject.

Besides, it is not on topic. Let's discuss it when MSNBC.com puts up a story about Justice Thomas.

Throw in an attack on the source, and you're all set.

Bill:

Are you really that big of a dummy? Or do you just play one on TV? So tell us about the $2.6 trillion in the trust fund, Navy Vet. Tell us where the cash is. Wait, I'll help you out -- there is no cash. That $2.6 trillion exists as IOUs in the form of Treasury bonds. And when the Social Security folks trot over to the Treasury to redeem those bonds in the near future, guess what? Treasury won't have the cash to pay them off. Sooooooooo, what happend then is either taxes are raised, benefits are cut, more debt is issued, or some combination thereof in order for Treasury to cover the their obligations.

And the point here, which YOU constantly ignore, is that it is morally bankrupt to expect Social Security recipients, who paid faithfully into the system for many years, to take the hit because Congress and the Presidents robbed their money. As a matter of moral imperative, it is up to Congress to PUT THE MONEY BACK, rather than just dismiss the whole thing as inescapable and slash benefits instead.

And if that means raising taxes, then so be it. Because those who benefited most from the raid -- i.e., the top 2 percenters -- can most afford to pay the freight.

Anyone with any moral fiber will face up to it. Which is why YOU never do. All you do is whine.

Feisty Redhead

While you all are busy picking the carcass clean on the President’s speech last night, I found some more facts our darling Clarence Thomas…

Oh, no! The article you quote is from a web site that has the word "progress" in its name. Therefore, any facts it provides can and must be ignored. Only facts from Fox News are of any importance, even if they're made-up facts.

Well, I thought the thread was about Afganistan. Other than one poster, David Walker, all others have talked about other topics.

Regarding the speech, again for the umpteenth time Obama tries to accomodate everyone but pleases no one. Down the middle again! I am no military expert but I would think that more troops can be pulled out. According to the speech, final phased withdrawl will not be until 2014 - three years from now. People can argue that he kept his promise to start withdrawl I really don't care anymore. In all reality it doesn't matter, despite what the people want the politicians all of them D and R need their conflicts.

Yes, Afganistan will eventually become a permanent base comparable to our bloated hierarchy of bases across Europe in Germany, in Korea, the middle east and Asia. Unfortunately unlike other areas our troops will still be in harms way in Afganistan for a long time to come. We will continue to have a large contingent in Iraq. Perhaps Obama will not choose to nation build in Libya? Who knows.

Obama reminds me of a saying they have down here. All hat no cattle. He talks a good talk but in foreign policy he has not delivered. I doubt this speech gave anyone any shivers or aroused any emotions.

You can discuss anything you wish. As I read the NY Times article I see where the Supreme Court Justices are not required to follow the code and an expert saying he didn't see anything that violated the code just peculiar, etc. So the challenge to refute so called facts is mute and a waste of space -- as I see it. I never asked for my permission. I merely stated a fact that it is off topic. I don't need your permission to say that either.

I do understand the tactic to try to reverse the balance in the Supreme Court since the economic numbers continue to decline, Bernacke is so confued as to why Obamanomics is not working, unemployment up again, etc. The current president is in the fight of his life for his re-election. It's a nice try but it won't happen.

Hi Ron,

That’s a Great analyst and theory on your part. This could very well happen. Also, Amy mentioned in one of her post yesterday that a tea party choice could run as a third against the other two.

Once again the right is big on noise but has yet to disprove any of the facts presented. Thomas is a crook and should step down. I wrote that several months ago and it has not changed. In fact we are seeing a much clearer trail of his dealings.

I would like to take this time to just say how much respect I have for my fellow socialist posters US Navy, Feisty Redhead, Beverly, Clara and Newday.

You guys have shown a lot of heart coming back here after the spanking and shellacking given to you all this week by Spanky. It reminds me of what a great man once said: "It's not how many times you are knocked down and humiliated, it's how many times you get back up to get humiliated again that counts."

Keep up the good work, guys.

Always faithfull:

Shouldn't you be working that same "angle" with Michele Bachman instead or maybe Newt Gingrich?

If Feisty doesn't accept that challenge, I will.

This is not about race. It's about integrity. Playing the race card here is merely your very transparent attempt to deflect attention from what is a clear violation of ethics by Justice Thomas.

Wow, the Left is really in panic mode today. Even has Anna Molly quoting Judicial Modes of Conduct for the second day in a row.

Regarding the President's speech: I thought it was nice that Jon Huntsman gave the President his best line of the night "It's time to start nation building here at home".

Same thing Huntsman said on GMA earlier.

Misleading is the only word I can find for this article. So, its 'down the middle' because one end of the scale was set by a handful of psychotic politicians from the left? Yet, JUST YESTERDAY, down the middle meant a troop withdrawal of 10,000, instead of 5,000 or 15,000.

You are sucking, journalists!

33,000 is far above the number espoused by our esteemed investigators. It made the extremist hawks angry as well as the extremist doves, so therefore it is 'down the middle?' Uh, no. The number is still far above what was anticipated. But go on and write what you want, and make no reference as to what you wrote just yesterday. The beauty of journalism is you can pretend you didn't say anything yesterday, isn't it? Because your opinion of the reader is so low....

Fellow travelers, and this morning - especially Ron Indiana:

I have this thing about the English language. All language is a rather blunt tool, but there are rules, and if we follow them, it makes discourse a bit more clear. Quotation marks have a clear purpose. As we have seen, that purpose is either lost on the likes of no joe and Joanna Smith and their countless fellow liar friends, or they simply abuse them. As a consequence they cannot be trusted and their posts are worthless.

I write that by way of providing a backdrop for the following. This morning you referred to "social conservatives". That term would certainly make a "Top 10" list of "WTF does that mean?"

Most of the time, I find myself in full agreement with your posts and their sentiments, but please call these people what they are. They are totalitarians. They are the spiritual descendents of Torquemada, of the Witch-burning crowd, of the Know-Nothings, and of Luddites. Diversity can be a wonderful thing and tolerance is generally a virtue. But these people have moved to an extreme that can in no way be labeled as merely diverse. They are dangerous, and if there was ever a case to be made for intolerance - This is it.

They are rather ordinary-looking people; Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, but some have pretty bows - Sarah Palin. But that wrapping covers seething hatred. They use all the right words. They're patriots! You aren't sure what a patriot is? A patriot agrees with everything they say. You're UNpatriotic if you don't. Oh how they love that "freedom" word. You have the freedom to do exactly what they say you should do. They fly the flag and they tote their Bibles and they hold dear those traditional family values. They can't tell you often enough. Lies, lies, and more lies.

They are most assuredly not social conservatives. Hypocrite is too mild as a descriptor. No, they are very, very dangerous and they are as close to pure totalitarians as one may find on this planet. They are intolerable.

Great posts on Clarence Thomas. Conservatives desperately want this issue to go away, but it won't. It can't, in fact, because Thomas continues to demonstrate his lack of ethics on an almost weekly basis.

The SS Trust fund is indeed in T-Bills that are backed by the strength of the US Government. That is a fact and T-Bills by the way are still considered the most safest investment there is. The only way SS goes down the tube any time soon is if the US Government goes down the tubes. But then again you repugs know that and that is one of the reasons you guys are fighting so hard to do just that.

You are the dummy and an un-American one to boot. If you hate this country so much just move out. We will not miss you.

We need problem solvers not more whinny misinformed lying twits that their best and only arguements are BS.

test

I see where the Supreme Court Justices are not required to follow the code

Silly us, expecting the judges at the highest court in the land to have ethics!

Yellowdog-Mark D

Well, I thought the thread was about Afganistan. Other than one poster, David Walker, all others have talked about other topics.

People post comments here on subjects the media can't or won't cover. That's been going on for as long as this message board has been around.

Regarding the speech, again for the umpteenth time Obama tries to accomodate everyone but pleases no one.

Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do during the 2008 campaign. Maybe he should have broken his campaign promise and just pulled all the troops out immediately. A good case could be made for that. But the Obama haters would instantly attack him, the pretend peaceniks in the GOP like Romney would flip-flop back to being war hawks, and public opinion would soon be manipulated by the media so that a majority of voters would view Obama as a "cut-and-run" guy. That's how politics is done these days.

And the point here, which YOU constantly ignore, is that it is morally bankrupt to expect Social Security recipients, who paid faithfully into the system for many years, to take the hit because Congress and the Presidents robbed their money. As a matter of moral imperative, it is up to Congress to PUT THE MONEY BACK, rather than just dismiss the whole thing as inescapable and slash benefits instead.

This is so sad. You use morally bankrupt and congress in the same sentence..so true. But then the classic "it is up to Congress to PUT THE MONEY BACK". And where does Congress get the money from? That's right us taxpayers. But then you think didn't Congress and the Administration just extend the lower tax rates? And where do we come full circle to...that's right Congress AND the Administration are morally bankrupt.

BTW I keep hearing the call taxpayers to pay their fair share. Well I have a question. I have one kid that waited until I could afford her financially. I get a tax allowance and I pay around 27% of my salary in federal taxes after deductions etc. Now explain to me the fairness of not taxing families that go ahead and 4 or 5 children. Explain to me the fairness of these families receiving earned income credits, money from the government, because they decided to have more children than they can afford. Why is fair for people who make bad decisions to be exempted from paying taxes?

On another point. Here is another case, like the police officer in Massachusetts, that blows a hole in the argument that illegal immigrants are only doing jobs that Americans won't. I hope you read this and think of some kids you may know who can't get job and wonder maybe this is the reason. I also hope that Illinois did not go ahead with the scheme to fund illegal students at the expense of American kids.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=91589

wow...must be something in the water...I actually agree with Feisty....

If Thomas had a shred of integrity - he would do so voluntarily!..step down...pudding pop time!!

David Walker:

Quotation marks have a clear purpose. As we have seen, that purpose is either lost on the likes of no joe and Joanna Smith and their countless fellow liar friends, or they simply abuse them.

Yes, I was the target of nojonobo's abuse of quotation marks yesterday. These people have no integrity and they have no class whatsoever.

@JB -- As a conservative I could care less about Justice Thomas. If he did anything wrong, then it will the law will handle it. I don't blame liberals from trying to divert the issue away from high unemployment, poor economic news, housing market price in a downward spiral, inflation, double dip recession, massive and mounting debt, huge deficit, and so on and so on. Give it your best but it won't take away from the facts that this president is a failure.

Job 1 and David Walker: Thanks for the shout out. I've never been great when it comes to English grammar, so you may need to give me some slack. I want to believe it's the idea that counts. And yes, the right-wing nut jobs are a danger to our Democracy.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

The SS Trust fund is indeed in T-Bills that are backed by the strength of the US Government. That is a fact and T-Bills by the way are still considered the most safest investment there is. The only way SS goes down the tube any time soon is if the US Government goes down the tubes. But then again you repugs know that and that is one of the reasons you guys are fighting so hard to do just that.

Maybe that's why the Republicans want to force the federal government to default on its debts by not raising the debt ceiling. They've been itching to get rid of Social Security for 70 years, and causing investors to view the United States as a dead-beat country that won't pay its bills would be an excellent way to accomplish that objective.

David Walker

So President Obama made it official. Hope and change is dead, just another empty campaign slogan. Barely two years into this presidency and it is clear we will return to, "Vote for me, I'm the lesser of two evils." I'm angry. I'm furious. I'm hurt.

For me, Afghanistan is just the final straw

There's more. I wonder why so many bankers got a free pass after they damned near killed the world. Why is the President afraid to say marriage is whatever the married partners say it is? Why is he afraid to say the LBGT community has rights identical to those of everyone else? Why doesn't he admit that the War on Drugs is a failure. For a smart guy, he sure seems to miss the fact that no one ever wins any kind of war.

T

hat's simply not an option. More than likely, I will even vote for him.

I will definitely vote for him. I do not want a right wing SUPREME COURT. In addition to that, I think he has done a far better job and still will do one over any other choice.

Feisty if everybody without a shred of ingegrity resigned voluntarily then Washington DC would be a ghost town

Lol @ Madison....true story on that statement

Interesting thing about the constant harping on thomas. No one has initiated (or been successful in initiating) legal action against him. And according to our own fiesty she wants to go back to events happening 3 years, 10 years and even to 1969 (if I read one of her links right). And yet where is the legal action.

Perhaps Anna molly would be so kind to file the appropriate papers, rather than attempt misdirection, to resolve this matter.

Former potus gerald ford was once asked (when he was a member of congress) about impeachment and what "high crimes and misdemeanors meant"

His reply was...

” He stated that “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

With such a lose interpretation, how could a democrat controlled house have missed this between 2006 and 2011

Houston:

You are 100% correct. What the GOP/TP is betting on is the collapse of the US Economy as they feel this is their ticket into the White House. They will do everything in their power to bring this about and then blame President Obama. Then they will continue the very same agenda that led to the demise of this country and demand that we thank them because they did us a favor.

@Houston - Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do during the 2008 campaign. Maybe he should have broken his campaign promise and just pulled all the troops out immediately. A good case could be made for that.

Yes he has kept his campaign promise to fight the so called war of necessity. So he added 20,000 troops his first months than an additional 33,000 in Dec of 09. Problem is I never agreed with that portion of the campaign plan.

Others talk about other topics so I will add a personal note. I have a tween, last night we happened to rent the movie "Mega-mind" - Will Ferrell. The funniest part was the villian plasters hundreds of circular blue red and white Posters of himself hands on chin looking up pensively to the upper left side.

It was a play on the Obama campaign poster but in lieu of Yes we can, it said NO YOU CAN'T. I laughed out loud.

We may have believed yes we can, but....

White Collare Auto:

You say that President Obama stole the "nation building here at home" quip from Jon Huntsman.

Not true.

The President included that line in his speech to West Point on Af/Pak strategy 18 months ago.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

David Walker and Yellowdog:

President Obama knows what he is doing in regards to foreign policy. There is a whole WORLD's worth of crap going on that is NOT REPORTED in our "media". So please don't paint with such a broad brush based on what little we actually know about what is going on. Did the media tell us that we were tracking Osama Bin Laden? Would we really want them too?

Reading comments from you Far Left Doorknobs has gone from interesting to amusing to exhausting. You keep saying the same things, over and over again. You are boring and sad little people.

To David Walker re your post on 'social conservtives' read this interesting piece by Mike Taibbi in the latest Rollingstone edition. It pretty much sums up your thoughts, especially re Michelle Bachman.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

Fiesty, USNDVR, Bev and the rest of the cast of "regulars" here on "FIRST READ" a.k.a - The Democratic Demagoguery and Propaganda Cut & Paste Board. I urge you all to wake up and smell the coffee! Read and OBJECTIVELY digest all the negative news regarding your fearless leader in recent days.......it's not good and it AIN'T gettin any better either!!!!! Bernanke's premonition alone spells political doom for ANY incumbent President, however and at this juncture......it happens to be Obama. It is better to accept this situation for what it is rather than continue to deny it....it is only counter productive to do so. Sticking your head in the "cut & paste essay" sand and pretending that this is all not happening is a fools game!

So I am lost, isnt this First Read about the failures of Obama not the personal attackes on Thomas, Bachmann or any other person the liberal gang disagrees with. David Walker kept the discussion on point and actually addressed specific actions or positions but Navy, Fiesty all you guys do is personally attack. You would prefer to attack Bachmann personally and call her names and suggest she isnt intelligent enough etc rather than truly debate the issues. Besides the conservative posters that also name call on here, everytime someone wants to address the issues or respond with counter arguments, Navy calls us Thugs rather than actually respond. To be consistent, after last night's speech I would have thought Fiesty you would have been laughing at Obama's pronounciation of the Tollybon or Pockystan as his eyes go from right to left reading the teleprompter. Everyone wants to attack Bachmann or Perry for his Texas accent or Bush for sounding less intelligent, but why doesnt that same standard apply to Obama if you feel strongly that pronounciation is a sign of intelligence or being able to never misspeak when giving speeches? Shouldnt we also worry about Obama's basic intelligence too since he wont release his SAT scores or grades like Bush had to? Obama actually said outloud that ATMs have cost this country jobs which showed an amazing lack of financial understanding in that ATMs probably created far more higher paying jobs than the tellers that were laid off? From the technology to create to the softward needed to the manafacturing of the ATM and the sales force created to market the varying types of ATMs, technology advances actually create jobs. How is it that our president doesnt get that basic financial understanding and we expect him to lead us out of this fiscal mess? And none of you called him on it?

Ok, that said I make these remarks because just as your attacks on the GOP candidates sound shrill and silly, so do mine on Obama. I dont really care that much how he pronounces words but I do care about actual policy decisions. Not everything one party does is 100% nor 100% bad. So why cant we take a policy whether advocated by Obama or not and just discuss it without all your noise. Give up the attacks and leave this First Read on whether the proposal put forth by Obama on Afghanistan last night is something you think is appropriate or not. Lets discuss the new jobless claims number or the latest news coming out on healthcare reform or a policy proposal put forth by one of the GOP candidates and dissect it one way or another without saying it wont work or its stupid or the candidate is stupid whatever just because its from the party you wont vote for. Someone started a social security debate but it got bogged down by Navy name calling and vice versa. By the way Navy, the fact that Social Security funds are invested in T-Bills doesnt mean its funded because where is teh government going to get the money to pay back those T-bills? That means its unfunded. I assume you get that cash is fungible right?

Beverly in Chicago:

I appreciate your post at 1.42. Really, I do. Maybe more explanation for my position is in order. Let me preface by saying I am painfully aware that the President has an incredibly severe limitation on how he uses the bully pulpit. He's the wrong shade of "white". The knee-jerk deniers can assert otherwise all day and all night, but the fact is bigotry is alive. It is time that the President and his staff acknowledge that fact and realize there is nothing - absolutely nothing - he can do that will ever please this group of ignorant scum.

Additionally, he must fight the identity politics of the far right. Those extremists no more represent the Party of Lincoln than a rabid dog. There is nothing the President can do that will please this group of low-intellect dogmabots. To hell with them. Our nation's future is at stake.

I speak from experience when I tell you that elective office is a horrible joke. Elective office is in fact - political office. ALL decisions eventually fall victim to politics. It is simply not possible to overemphasize the importance of that fact. Politicians are what is killing this nation. Their votes are traded for dollars, and their actions are met with indifference. They lie to us as a matter of course and our reaction is to observe that, well, all politicians do it. These threads reek of that attitude. Let someone mention honesty and integrity and they are mocked. Right now, there are posters in this thread who are defending the outright sleaziness of Clarence Thomas and his influence-peddling wife.

Each day promises another ethical train wreck and each day our nation accelerates toward destruction. There is a terrible urgency here. We do not have time to waste - not one second. Air, water, and soil pollution continue unabated. Financial disaster is a step away. The gap between upper and lower class continues to widen. We should be horrified that there are people - American citizens - who can argue that insurance company profits are more important than medical care for the ill. The list goes on.

The President cannot wait for a second term. He has to stand up now and tell the truth - warts and all. He is a very smart man - he knows the truth. Let this be a referendum on the American people. The President MUST speak the truth, and loudly. Let the 2012 election show whether we understand how serious our problems are and whether we are willing to take the pain. Find out whether we are the brave nation we like to think we are or too stupid to understand we are literally talking about the end of the human race.

Frankly, I believe we are past the tipping point. Our water supplies are dwindling and the quality is being compromised. The atmosphere is loading and climate change is very real. Our cheap energy sources are disappearing. The demand for these resources is climbing dramatically. Probably the most horrible aggravating factor is that too many people believe that God is going to take care of everything. There's also the magic thinking remedy favored by so many.

No Bev, it is said that management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right thing. The President must stand tall, he must stand proud, he must stand as an American, and lead. We need leadership - NOW!

Kirk:

Just a point of information: The President's pronunciation of Taliban and Pakistan is precisely correct. Perhaps you have forgotten President George H.W. Bush and his gratuitous butchering of Saddam Hussein's name. That's juvenile, it's embarrassing and it does not befit a statesman.

David Walker -

I usually agree with everything you say, especially concerning social conservatives. I recently watched the movie V for Vendetta the other night and it was scary how social conservatives follow the tyrannical government depicted in that film. Religious doctrine rules the land, spawned from the fear of terrorist attacks. How the tea party and social conservatives can speak about freedom, while actively trying to remove personal freedom, is beyond my comprehension. I can only speculate that the freedom they speak of is in regards to the freedom to be EXACTLY LIKE THEM. It will be a very scary and dangerous time if they ever come to power.

As for Obama's speech last night . . . well, it was to be expected. Having family in very high military positions, I knew that his original campaign promise would not happen the way he explained it. There are factors he was not aware of at the time, but he is now. But then again, every President makes promises on the campaign trail they can not keep, that is part of the game.

David, I completely agree that its juvenile and Bush butchered a ton of words and so does Biden but which group on this blog makes fun of Bush or Bachmann or Palin but dont hold up Biden or Obama to the same standard? No, Obama's pronunciation of Taliban was incorrect by established dictionary versions and his pronunciation of Pakistan is the foreign and not accepted US and also correct pronunciation. I would prefer to not discuss the relative speaking methods of any of these people and discuss what their true policy positions and why? If we could keep the discussion to this we might actually come close to getting along. I just hate the practice of personal destruction that the paid bloggers on the left use in their postings and I think all of us should call them out on it all the time.

misinformed lying twits

Strong words Navy Vet, let's see you back them up. I challenge you to go through my post and specify the misinformation and/or lies. I've pointed out the misinformation in your post, and used an UNBIASED government source to back it up. Can you do the same? Inquiring minds want to know.

it is morally bankrupt to expect Social Security recipients, who paid faithfully into the system for many years, to take the hit because Congress and the Presidents robbed their money.

My goodness AM, you're losing your edge. My post had nothing to say about any expectation (moral or otherwise) of those who might be in line to take a hit on Social Security. I merely pointed out the FACT there is no cash in the Social security trust fund and laid out the options for recapitalizing the fund in order to pay scheduled benefits.

But while we're on the subject of morality, help me out on this. The oldsters who "paid faithfully" into Social Security can receive their scheduled benefits only if taxes are raised or more debt is issued. I daresay many of the folks who would be paying higher taxes and burdened with additional debt would be folks who are still working i.e. younger folks. So riddle me this: where is the morality in imposing an additional intergenerational tax or debt burden on younger folks, just so older folks whose generation created the damn Social Security problem in the first place can continue to receive their full checks? I'd actually be interested in hearing your response to that.

Because those who benefited most from the raid -- i.e., the top 2 percenters -- can most afford to pay the freight.

Wow AM, you're really going off the deep end on that one. First, please provide the documentation to prove your sweeping unsupported assertion that the "top 2 percenters" benefited the most from the "raid" on the Social Security trust fund. Secondly, you're going to have to explain exactly what you mean by "raid." I know the low information types on your side think the Social Security trust fund has been "raided" over the years, but has it really? I mean ya gotta do something with all that cash besides stick it under a mattress, so why not lend it back to the government to be used for other purposes – which is exactly what has transpired.

There is nothing inherently evil or improper in doing that. Under prudent federal budget deficit levels, the potential need to issue more debt to recapitalize the Social Security trust fund would have been relatively manageable. The problem today is our persistent budget deficits have been less than prudent, and when you add the need to finance those deficit to the need to also refinance Social Security, well then your're talking about big money. And that's where we are today.

Thoughts from Cali:

Appreciate your perspective. Not clear on what you meant about the President's campaign promise in regards to Afghanistan. The President has done exactly what he campaigned on doing - getting out of Iraq and hunting down those who actually did plan 9-11.

David Walker - always enjoy your posts whether I agree with them or not!

The noteworthy aspect of President Obama's speech is that it lays the groundwork for American domestic political rhetoric to circle back into alignment with military reality. If military reality and military objectives are defined in terms of the Taliban insurgency, then Afghanistan is every bit as lost now as it was 2 years ago if not more so. But if they are defined in terms of al Qaeda, then the US has good cause to claim victory and reorient its posture in Afghanistan. The US war against transnational extremism is far from over, but the trepidation that the rest of the world feels as Washington slowly regains the bandwidth to focus its attention elsewhere is a testament to the magnitude of the window of opportunity that other global powers have enjoyed, thanks to the American focus on geographically restricted wars against an elusive, transnational phenomenon.

Morning Nashville Fan,

Though I am moderate on some issues, I am far left on many issues hence the name yellowdog. What I try, and not saying I always do is strive for consistency. For me a big part of my voting for Obama was his anti war stance. Do I believe he is now pro war? No, but I see the status quo that you, me and a lot of others bemoaned about Bush. Whether he uses stirring speeches vs. Bush's blunt statements the troops are still in harms way.

Would we all give Bush a pass if he had added troops in Afganistan? Would we agree with his timetables? In many ways I favor some of Ron Paul's foreign policy over where Obama stands. I have a high regard for Obama and all of the problems he faces. No one on the other side is close to him in my opinion because, I can't buy their whole bill of goods their idealogy and policy ideas.

The President has taken over for a lot of problems but after 2 1/2 years all of those problems are his. He is trying to address them as he sees fit. Obama is the President, a constitutional expert, a lawyer he has done more than I could have hoped from McCain/Palin. He will do more than Perry/Bachman or whoever they run. He still will get my vote but not sure he will win.

Thoughts from Cali - I liked V for Vendeta. Love me some Natalie Portman - Great actress.

edit - Things are bad...........................................................................they collapsed the Fiesty post.

Wow folks:

Some very kind words today. Thank you, and in a related development, my daughter has begun to acknowledge - albeit grudgingly - that on occasion I do get things right; mostly by accident.

Nashville fan:

I very much appreciate your point of view on the subject of Afghanistan. However, if there are circumstances that the President learned after taking office - I think he should share them with the American public. I am aware that there is information that is best not shared, and I would have accepted - not happily though - a disclaimer that he knows of new information that has changed his thinking. I even allowed for this possibility in my initial post. Perhaps we are really there because of the destabilizing and unstable country of Pakistan. There may be other reason(s). I hate being treated like a mushroom.

At present, no one has been able to convince me that the "terrorist" threat is a military matter. I am firmly convinced this is a police matter. Additionally, I do not buy into the notion of nation building. It just might be that not everyone is enamored of democracy. Indeed, if memory serves the vast majority of Afghanis see us as an occupying force.

Yellowdog:

Much of what I wrote to Nashville fan could have been directed to you, but I would like to add a point. I have never believed that President Obama is a foreign policy neophyte. Indeed, his world tour which has been stupidly referred to as an "apology tour" aptly demonstrated his talents. Still, there was nothing in his speech that told me there are new factors, or factors which were not in his possession when he laid out his reasons for being in Afghanistan. I can sum it up best by saying I trust General Officers almost as far as I can throw a Grand Piano.

Thoughts from Cali:

I hope you take no offense about the General Officer remarks. I had my own experience with one of those guys - a fellow named Westmoreland. Some years ago, I went out on an assignment to interview him. Imagine that - my chance to ask him point blank about the body count crap and his lies to the stateside civilian staff. Well, he just didn't think he should have to talk about that. Jerk! Yup, maybe there's a bit of a bias in my view.

Gingerbread Mamma:

Thanks for the link. I just don't know how much more I could be impressed by Michelle Bachmann. Please see Webster for the definition of impressed, as in - she leaves a vivid impression; sort of like when a doctor refers to a malignancy as "remarkable".

Kirk:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I wrote of George H.W. Bush's pronunciation of Saddam Hussein's name, not the younger Bush. Webster's English Dictionary is not a suitable reference for the pronunciation of proper names/proper nouns - particularly foreign names. Again, the President correctly pronounced Pakistan and Taliban. As an example you certainly wouldn't pronounce Francois as Frankoyce. It's simply a case of respect.

Elise, SF:

Truly interesting perspective. However, I think you only reinforce my view that this terrorism stuff - whether al-Qaeda, Red Brigades, Aum Shinrikyo, Mafia, or garden variety drug dealers - is best handled by police. To that end, I think the President should have declared victory, begun an immediate troop withdrawal, and lay the foundation for a serious international cooperative effort against these deadly disruptions.

Finally, to those who collapsed this thread - Many, many thanks. I can now see that Clarence Thomas is a really spiffy guy.

To David Walker et al.,

The Republicans are Obama's best friend(s) right now. The simple-minded Tea Partiers, the Teabangelicals, the misnamed Pro-Lifers, and the misogynists who control the G.O.P. will not allow a reasonable candidate to represent the party. They are just plain scary - The American Taliban.

I see by the quote I just pasted, that will get me "collapsed/deleted by the community" that you believe that anyone that doesn't follow the Left, Democrats and Obama,Clinton,Carter, and the Kennedy/Johnson Regimes are just simple Minded jerks. Let me explain something to you, and I don't know your age, but I'm about 64, and I've lived through a whole lot in my life, and I do remember a lot of it....

Number ONE is that America grew very fast after WWII and the end of the DEMOCRATS that held Power all the way through that War and before, even during WWi. I became acutely aware of Politics when our Neighbor came to our door early one day and asked my Dad if he had heard that days news, my Dad said no, and the Neighbor told him, and I quote him "The Reds crossed the border and are fighting their way into Seoul". My Dad immediatly stated "Well, I gues this means we go back to War because America was the most POWERFUL Nation on Earth, both economically and Militarily, and we were part of the UN, that had Soldiers there".

I became very afraid as I thought it meant that my Dad and our Neighbor, both WWII Vets would soon be leaving to go fight in that faraway place called Korea, and then I found it on our Globe in our Home, scary stuff for a 6 Year old kid, what? Well, neither had to go, but a lot of High School Graduates did, they didn't have the protection of Marriage or College that Kennedy granted in 1961. Off they went, and we never saw aome of them again, but I do know my Parents went to a lot of Funerals for our Neighbors and the Community.

Eisenhower presided over the longest period of Peace we ever had, considering that Korea is still to this day rated as a Combat tour for most, it has never ended. So much fo making deals with Communists. Next, in 1954, the French got wupped at Nui Ba Dinh, so we had to step up slightly our "Advisory" Troops to the South Vietnamese small Military, and even brought some to the States for certain Training we couldn't provide them in Country.

BTW, for those that Don't know, I've a copy of "the Chronology of the History of the World from 4500BC to 2010", go to your Librarty or GOOGLE it, then look under the period 1944-1945, couple of pages there, and it informed me of a fact that is little known: We, the USA, first entered the "Vietnam War" in 1945, when American Soldiers captured Saigon for the first time, under a Democrat at the end of WWII.

Eisenhower strictly controlled our Military levels there until 1954, See French Surrender ant Nui Ba Dinh....

Kennedy and Johnson were total frauds and loosers, with ONE great thing: The Civil Rights Amendment!! I do agreee THAT was wonderful, but, as a Nation when I was in High School, with nearly every Race represented from K-12, why we even had to have it to begin with, as we were a Nation that welcomed ALL Legal Immigrants and Races, BUT, Firmly and Fastly deported any Illegal Immigrants we found, from ALL Nations.

Kennedy upped the anti in Vietnam, but was a total failure with his Bay of Pigs fiasco, and to partially cover his bad piece of news, upped the Troop leveels in Vietnam, hence the "1960-1975" Dates on the Vietnam Service Medal, that is work by EVERY Soldier that was there or in certain Combat-related off site misssions, much like the Drone flyers in Florida control the Drones over Afganistn today, McGill AFB.

Johnson had his Military upped to over 500,000 in Vietnam with his "Gulf of Tonkin" Lie, and the result was over 58,000 Dead, innumeral wounded, as some don't get or want treatment for the PTSD they suffered when they were either Physically or Mentally Wounded, Permanently, and the VA and Military didn't admit to or treat those wounds until the late 1970's. If you don't believe that, watch ANY Vet that actually saw Combat during a Thunder Storm or at the Fourth of July, or any event with Fireworks. We relive, involuntarily, our firefights, the screams of the Wounded, the smell and taste of War, and the carrying the bodies of our friends that died or were wounded to the Medivac Helicopters coming in, sometimes under Heavy fire, to evac them back. We never forget!!!!!

When the President says that he will bring 10,000 or 100,000 home, the Military figures the time in Country of each Soldier under it's Command, and only those with the longest times, 10 Months or more in Vietnam, actually come home, the rest with less than the 10 Month cutoff are Re-Assigned to other Units, and the Unit coming Home only brings the Few and their "Colors" (The Unit designation Flag that every Unit has, whether fielded or at Home statin), and the rest stay there.

I'll stop my comment here, as I am very passionate about what actually happened compared to the "Revised" History of the Left, and YES, I caqn do the LIVE comparison as I lived through every single day of it. Even in 1955, I was asking the Servicemembers we knew what happened, if they would talk about it, and compared it to the "News" Reports daily in the Papers, on Radio, and TV.

You will, Sir, slam my spelling and grammer to use as one tool to discredit me, and you will also use the thought that I'm from the Right. But Sir, you have NO Idea who or what I actually am. However, isn't "Namecalling" as in your statement I put in quotes, doing just that? Downgrading and lableing those you disagree with? Isn't that part of the Code of Honor to not do that, and to do so a Violation of that Code?

The thing is, if you, on the Left, wipe-out that Code for YOUR Purposes and Collar the Right with their Purposes, called Censoring, as if I had used the "F" or "N" word, needed of censoring as Inflamitory, but normal speech, by anyone, is just that, "FREE'.?

We , the Veterans, have given you the RIGHT to keep that free speech you tout, not Ministers, or Teachers, but the Military and those that supported us and Our Constitution.

Sorry if my history and facts upset you and your's , but they are just that: Hard facts that cannot be re-written. The reason Obama is doing what he is today is simply a Political Ploy to to gain favor in an Election cycle, to gain votes. However, in America we are hurting, and deeper in debt,Nationally, than at any time in History, and under Obama, we are failing, just as the Greeks, Spain, and Ireland are failing under the exact same Policy that Obam is following. It is reported by the CBO, and it is reported by the European News, because if we fail as a Nation, as the others have in their nanny-stae mentality, we won't be able to protect them as we have since the end of WWII.

I talk Daily with my European and Asian friends, and they are equally afraid of our failure, because thten, without us as a Very Strong Nation, they fail also. Global economy? Nope Global Failure, and we, under the Leftsit Agenda, may very well be the next "Nanny State" you love so, to Fail as a FREE NATION.

Go think about that, read REAL History, and get back to me, hey?

As I said, I may not spell all my words just right, or Punctuate correctly, but you yet to control my Memory, as I lived through it, and YES, I do remember it very well and clearly.

Thankn you, and "collapsing/deleting" Name calling and Lableing, begain now, as I am sure it will be, as I do disagree with you on many of your "Points", but space won't allow for the full Education that you and your's on the Left need, and you won't get that under any Unionized Teacher, or the SEIU, the external Security arm of Obama.

David, thanks for having a respectful tone to your responses and I appreciate the dialogue and I really dont want to continue on this subject because it wasnt the purpose of my post. As always, I never get a response on the tone aspect of the paid left posters and I guess I shouldnt expect to since they get paid to agitate the group into agreeing with them which is why they never respond to spirited well thought out debate. They get paid to personally attack anyone who disagrees and state a certain party line.

I didnt really pick up on your George Bush nuance but I do remember that now. I dont think the difference we are talking about is the same. There isnt a foreign pronunciation of the Taliban that is Tolly pronounced like Aunt Polly so not sure what dialect he was attempting to respect on that one. As for Pockystan being a foreign accepted version--sorry we are americans and Pakistan--pronounced Pack is the more accepted version around the world and he is speaking to his US citizens not for the benefit of the French. We dont pronounce Cairo, Illinois the way the Egyptians do for the benefit of the Egyptians when its pronounced completely different here. In any event, my point was more aimed at those who personally attack and make fun of Michelle Bachmann on her constantly for reasons other than her policies. Its tragic when a successful tax lawyer from a generation of women in which it was so difficult to even be successful as a lawyer with a impeachable personal story is not held up on a pedestal by the liberal women on this blog. It sickens me that the personal attacks on her intelligence etc is the only way these people can get through their life. If you dont like her political or social policies thats fine but you can still respect her and what she has accomplished. I find Nancy Pelosi's policies to be some of the most destructive in our history and many of her political positions to be horribly misguided but I still respect her climbing the old boys network to be the first female speaker of the house. Thats something all women can look up to and honor and respect. If I cant convince someone on a debate of the issue, I dont then say yeah but she is stupid or ugly or filthy rich so she must be an idiot and nothing she says could possibly be right. People who do that on this post just lose all the credibility they might have had in the substantive aspect of their positions.

Ray lotsanumbers:

Like you I am a youngster AND a veteran. My wife and I both had fathers who served in the Pacific theater in WWII. We both had uncles who served in Korea. Her uncle came back in a box. I think that means we lived through the same period of history. I will say I question your interpretation of history when you are so quick to interpret my post to mean that I am not a veteran. As I said, I am. I also served in Viet Nam.

You may have come to First Read before, but I do not recall having read one of your posts before. I think you have probably not read mine. I have repeatedly pointed out that the Republican Party is now controlled by the mindless group of screamers to whom I referred in the portion of my post that you pasted. Code of honor? Name calling? The Tea Party picked its name. Are they simple-minded? You bet. The world is black and white for them. Pro-Lifers? They picked their name. Are they misnamed? You bet. Far too many of them support capital punishment. Far too many are quick to support any military incursion that comes down the pike! That's about death - not life. Misogynists? If you disagree with that characterization, I suggest you look the word up in the dictionary. There's no shortage of misogynists in the G.O.P. Teabangelicals? Well, that's a colloquialism, and it works just fine for me. I'll stand by my assertion, which I have repeated ad nauseum - Those people are not true Republicans. They are exactly what I said they are. When did the truth become a violation of any Code of Honor?

From my history, I have seen their tactics. I have warned time and again, that what these nuts did in California is precisely what they are doing now at the national level. I have asked time and again why true Republicans have allowed the right wing nuts to control the agenda of a party that once rightfully boasted of such great Presidents as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower.

I am not going to respond to your post point by point. I have already spent too much time here. I will say that I have already made my feelings quite clear on how I feel about the President's action. I am greatly disappointed. I had hoped for much, much more. However, he is doing EXACTLY what he said he would do. EXACTLY. I just don't like it.

Kirk:

I'm sure we'll see more of each other. Best to you.

Hey Bill -- this isn't rocket science.

If the taxes need to be raised, then raise the taxes. And stop acting like this is some sort of moral dilemma. It's NOT. The morality is clear to those with clear morals. And the two percenters are NOT the victims of our little morality tale.

And you know it.

p.s. If I sound like I've lost my edge, maybe it's because I'm weary, Bill, of hearing the same old morally bankrupt arguments over and over and over again. Help me out here, Bill. Say something new.