And no one will be endorsing Pataki either.

Exactly! Not sure who I'm voting for yet but I'm pretty sure there won't be a President Obama after January 2013. It's too early to totally commit to anyone right now. Most are waiting for the dust to settle and that's why no one on the GOP side has a large majority yet.

Keep believing that Dan and get back to me December, 2012

Another very insightful comment from the old gal: reminds me of *fireworks* starts off with a bang, then rapidly fizzles out!

Gosh, to think it was only just January 2009 when Obama's approvals were through the roof.

You've got to be careful, nothing on the web is private, even if the webmasters tell you your little area of Algores internet (he invented the privacy buttons) are all private.

A hard, difficult, and embarrassing lesson to learn for many.

Gosh, to think it was only just January 2009 when Obama's approvals were through the roof.

____________________________________________________________

So, that's what set the house on fire and is now causing it to burn to the ground.

The possibility of a Pataki candidacy is interesting. It would certainly once again alter the dynamics of the GOP primary campaign. While Pataki seems unelectable in November, his presence would alter Perry's current dominance and should introduce some additional, slightly more moderate, discussion. Pataki might prove to be the foil for Huntsman to gain more attention in addressing the issues, by altering the concentration on entirely extreme-right discourse. Huntsman, of course, has moved close to the extreme right, but hasn't emptied his kool-aid cup yet.

Perry is looking more and more like a July 4 Roman candle. It's rather flashy while there are still some fireworks in the tube, but all too soon, the sparks and bangs come to an end. The neighborhood looks around for who else has some stuff to set off and the empty Roman candle tube just smoulders in the dark.

John A good analogy. I was thinking that he's more like a shiny ball pean hammer the TeaPublicans keep grabbing onto and striking themselves in the head with. Until they grow up and realize that the no raising taxes pledge is a source of the deficit problems, our debt will not be reduced.

BTW - government spending can create jobs and lead the country out of an economic depression, you just have to balance it with tax increases and do it on a large enough scale.

You know what's wrong with the current GOP/TP field? There's just not enough losers in it.

Nicely said dirp101 - you take a dollar from certain people and you give that dollar to another, and wham bam, you have "created a job."

So why won;t Obama do that very thing dirp? And I was wondering - if you taxed my business more, thereby taking more money out of it might that not effect my ability to meet my expenses? And might that not have a consequence?

Or were you talking about raising YOUR taxes? I somehow suspect not.

Haven't you heard Spanky the republicans are raising your taxes, to keep from raising taxes on the richest. It is okay because you are not a major contributor to republicans for the rich party.

Kinda ironic that the party you are defending is the one to raise your taxes. Bet you didn't see that coming.

Horsesh$t spankster....Just how is your business being taxed? What taxes will be raised on your biz? Certainly not payroll taxes. Corporate taxes? Depends on whether you are a Sub Chapter S or a Corporation, or partnership now doesn't it. What about State taxes..Perhaps you should move to TEXASS. Most likely though you are one of those paper pushers who don't produce a tangible product. So tell me Spankster just WHAT taxes are you speaking of?

To borrow a phrase from Jason Linkins at Huffington, who tweaked the phrase from Ben Smith at Politico:

"George Pataki 2012: It's hard to see how this works."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/george-pataki-2012_n_935644.html

Such alacrity from the Greedy one (not a biz owner). Or is it poverty of intellect on display here?

Spanky: I have a question for you, if your federal income taxes go up, are you going to shut down and move to Ireland ? No. While some multi-national companies have decided that packing up and moving to another country is the way to go, the businesses that create jobs are not going to leave simply because the tax rates increase.

A tax rate increase on the wealthy and on corporations will NOT drive those companies away from the US. The ones that can leave already have. A tax is like any other cost, it will be absorbed and passed through in the form of increased prices.

....and I have another question for Spank:

Do YOU create any jobs? Do YOU take dollars from anyone?

you take a dollar from certain people and you give that dollar to another, and wham bam, you have "created a job."

One more:

What on earth are you rambling on about?????

I'm assuming you make sense in your OWN mind. (you certainly don't make ANY here...)

JS1

Al Gore? Really? That's all you got today?

dirp - I will not shut down or move - but you all bitch about the lack of job creation. You take money out of a business, it has less to create with. Pretty simple concept.

As stupid - I employ 8 and 1/2 people. I create not only those jobs, but my office generates money that pays all of us.

And you?

[I employ 8 and 1/2 people.]

...sure you do..."counselor"...

...speaking of gold...so, what are you out....10-20 grand?

Better check your brokers number again...is he even taking your calls?

You are too kind Drive By. Granting me official blogger status?

Here I was thinking I was just another idiot with a messed up opinion.

But as for your assumption - while it may be a blogging tactic, demanding that the opposing party fully set forth the foundation for it's position - is the cornerstone of law. Foundation is not just that thing your house sits on. :)

I get that the bulk of your knowledge about the legal field derives from Perry Mason and LA Law, but in fact cross examination, and indeed direct examination is predicated upon getting a full understanding of the facts and issues. You don't think litigants attack each other, their credability and the credibility and knowledge, skill and training of their retained experts?

That's why this blog is so informative to people like you. Gets you out of your comfortable little world, where you get to assert your position without challenge. In the real world, law, politics, business that's not the way it works.

Or do you think that there is no attacking and "demonizing" of the other side in litigation, politics and business?

I am so very proud of you Drive By - you are starting to clue in. There really is a big world out there. Nice to have you join in finally.

Golly Drive By you really nailed this one.

Let's play a game, shall we?

What other professions "grill" the "other side for information/don't let them simply assert a comment or position unchallenged/ Demand an elaborate, time-consuming comparison / analysis? Can you think of any?

1. Police - Where were you last night? At home. Oh, ok;

2. doctors- What's wrong. It hurts,. Oh, ok;

3. lawyers- Your client defrauded me. Oh ok how much should he pay you?;

4. journalists- what did you mean when you said it was unpatriotic to increase the debt by $4 trillion?

5. accountants- how is that stip club expense legitimate;

Now I bet you can think of a few questions the following would ask, right?

6. CEO/CFOs/COO;

7. boards of directors;

8. teachers using the Socratic method;

9. Social workers;

10. Gun store owners.

Dude, this is fun and I could go on all day, but I think you get the point.

Oh boy - I cannot wait for the more later. Thanks Drive By, you really are good at making my points. I just wonder if you realize it?

Spanky you are just another idiot with a messed up opinion. First correct thing I have ever read from your post.

What other professions "grill" the "other side for informatio

Yeah, pointing out facts, asking questions. My gosh, the humanity.

Allowing a Liberal to post a web link is too quick and efficient for them.

Not a problem with this bunch. Navy Boy and John A. push the cut and paste buffer limit daily. David Walker at least types his own, but keeps getting suspended, not for attacking others, but for his long and boring posts.

Once the Liberal goes through the trouble to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative . . . .

You mean the Libs around here? Not a chance. This Libbie bunch just say "[Bush, Perry, Bachmann, Romney, Gingrich, Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, Cantor] suck!". It saves time, and shows their intellectual side.

Spankster--Lawyers and Strippers...Spot On!

"Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the Liberal poster."

Seriously, Mr. Rove? I'm one of the most easily intimidated people you'll ever meet, and even I don't get "demoralized" by obvious crap like that. And I'm a timid widdle bunny wabbit compared to the likes of Drive-by or Feisty or Navy or Nashville or Anna Molly or Amy or Jody or any other lib who posts here. "Demoralizing".......sheesh!

Oh, and Spanky? The obvious difference between questions from the professionals you listed and yours is that they're actually looking for information or meaningful dialogue, whereas you're just here to agitate, annoy, avoid having to work, and brag about your material possessions. We get more meaningful dialogue out of Madison, NY and her misspelled, over-capitalized, non-sequitur one liners.

Thanks, Drive-by - now if NoJoe will just drop by to tell me how I need to get out more or brush up on my reading comprehension skills, I'll just be totally demoralized!

GreedyBizOwner

JAS1.......................Please stop...................your killing me.....................

The question is will anyone show up at the funeral?

I am so totally demoralized that I am going to go outside and work on mortaring my patio together. Driven to sucide with bricks and motar.

Obama 2012 for the love of America

Oh, goody- more plagiarized garbage.

Re-writing the Rules for Radicals- changing a few words around, leaning heavily on the Thesaurus, and inserting "liberal" for "opponent" does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that you stole Alinaky's work, and passed it off as something new.

By the way, I googled the title- nothing came up.

Hey, Spanky- you're the lawyer. Could MSN catch heat for this? Or is it only the treehouse kids?

Well at least you googled it this time!

no joe, no bo, nj

I goggles the title- nothing like it popped up in the search.

As I suspected- the treehouse kids are at it again

#3.33 - Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:56 PM CDT

Maybe if you googled it instead of goggles it - you might of located it! lol

Regardless, I provided you a direct link - just because you couldn't goggle it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy/journal/FINALKARLROVE.pdf

Hey, Spanky- you're the lawyer. Could MSN catch heat for this?

You're asking a ambulance chasing paralegal for advice?

Why not just ask you son the attorney who finished near the bottom of his class?

Do you have a son who's a lawyer right? I seem to remember you were going to sic him on the 'ombudsman' at Comcast & MSNBC! LMFAO!

Something tells me that's nothing more then another WHOPPER out of our resident serial liar!

Right up there with her 'PHD' in economics & beach house in Key West! ;o))))

Huh - this the back and forth, yet nothing from Drive By?

Nothing quits smells like fear like silence, eh Drive By? You posed a direct question. I answered, yet no response.

Guess the light bulb finally went off. Good for you Drive By.

WHOA! Finnaly got back to the 'reply' spank was talking about above, on another thread. Seems like Rove (or anyone else) telling someone how to obfucscate, or outright lie is equivalent to probing for facts. The cop asking 'where were you' is asking for facts. Telling someone how to cause confusion or obstruction for someone else in their efforts to state or illustrate facts is not. Spank seems to fall right into the description that was 'cut-and'pasted' in my post. Joanna seems to fall right in line there with him, right on cue, and exactly as the Rove Manifesto says to.

Yeah, I'M impressed.

'Counselor'.

Well I know I'm concerned how you feel about the republican nominee pat.

Spanky you may not be concerned, but most politicians are concerned. patHuntingtonNY is like many who MAY decide to vote for the Republican candidate, if the R is a moderate who could govern.

As long as the Republican Party continues to pander to the radical fundamentalists, both social and economic, it will not be able to win the Whitehouse. The effect of having an extremist for nominee is to drive away the moderates of both parties and alienate the independents. John McCain lost the moderates in his party and alienated the independents and the moderate Democrats who might have voted for him.

By going to the extremists, the Republican party has not only alienated the independents and the moderates in its own party, it has energized the Democratic party. Democrats have learned that if they fail to act, the Republican party will destroy the country.

Nah- pat is a 20 per center. Obama has a lock on that vote.