Sort of like all of Obama's economic advisors?

Sort of like all of Obama's economic advisors?

President Obama FIRED all of his economic advisors?

WHO KNEW???

Turns out that Huntsman's advisor preferred style over substance. LoL

So Feisty why did they get fired?

President Obama FIRED all of his economic advisors?

_________________________________________________

Nah.... they all snuck out of town under the cover of the darkness of dismal failure. All except that dunce Geithner that Barry begged to stay on so he wouldn't have to see his admin's failures on full display during a Senate confirmation hearing for his replacement.

President Obama FIREDall of his economic advisors?

Yea, Obama fired clueless, radical, liberal big government, Keynesian academia that had no real life experience (like himself) and replaced them with ....... clueless, radical, liberal big government, Keynesian academia that had no real life experience (like himself.)

"Smartest guy in the room" ....... that isn't saying much when he picks the guys in his room is it?

OMG...!

Stop the presses...!

This is an absolute MSNBC scoop, right....?

No one else has this...?

Oh, darn.

The New Hampshire Union Leader, you say?

Those guys get ALL the really big stories...

Good point, Feisty...

You're saying President Obama SHOULD have fired them all...

Right?

I didn't even know who this clown was until he started scoffing at his own party. I guess that is what got him that 1%.

I didn't even know who this clown was until he started scoffing at his own party.

Believing in evolution, science & global warming is now considered scoffing his own party? lmao!

YOU RWNJ's sure set the bar high...

What is this, "As the World Turns?"

There's plenty of real news out there, like how tax cuts for corporations and deregulation won't do Jack Sh!t to create jobs, how GDP is a better measure of the economy than corporate profits, how supply-side voodoo economics has been debunked and is being replaced with Keynesian philosophy, or how President Obama has been projected to win a second term because he meets 9 out of 13 indicators, how the GOP could become irrelevant unless it creates a new platform closer to the center -- something with substance.

The dumbing down of America and low-information voters are the problem more than Washington. Okay, Huntsman does need more name recognition...

Feisty, you no the TeaPeople don't like know edjucated folk!

TruePatriot: It could very well be that Huntsman is running now to have name recognition for 2016. Don't many of the eventual nominees run a losing campaign first to get name recognition ?

".... President Obama has been projected to win a second term because he meets 9 out of 13 indicators, how the GOP could become irrelevant unless it creates a new platform closer to the center -- something with substance."

Aww geez, T P- now we're going to have to read a bunch of posts about Bill Ayres or ACORN or Teleprompters or someting. Mayby playing golf.

chilled:

You need to stick to what you know. Co-Signing on Fisty does not make you credible. I probably have more education than most in here.

Just because someone is a Republican does not make them dumb. I know a lot of dumb azz Liberals too. It is on display in here everyday. I live next door to an ignorant Liberal. He seems to have gotten his education on the back of a cereal box. Labels do not make you dumb nor do they make you smart.

DBO -- good-un. And dirp101 -- That's the point, these topics are more interesting to debate.

Here's the info. on election prediction - http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ I think Vegas is the best at it. I've made money with personal bets. The 2008 election I wasn't sure about until Palin began to be vetted and the economy started to tank.

And what about Romney running again and again. It's interesting that Dems don't do that. Why?

Carry on...

TP - how President Obama has been projected to win a second term because he meets 9 out of 13 indicators.

This of course is from Allan Lichtman. Looks like he fudged a little to put Obama over the top. Short-term economy is not in recession. Not formally, but with the poor job growth many feel it is. That's put Obama down to 8 indicators. Another indicator is "3rd party challenger", which there is none, but what if it was Russ Feingold? Meaningless indicator. Down to 7 indicators. Policy change is another indicator, Obama gets the nod with ObamaCare (which about 30% approve of), and the Stimulus (which only hardcore progressive believe worked) Down to 6 indicators.

Obama loses.

"Did Perry sideline a foe opposed to waste site?

Texas governor Rick Perry tried to sideline a state commissioner who opposed expanding the scope of a nuclear-waste landfill owned by one of the governor's biggest political donors, Reuters has learned"

Neat post, MSNBC. KEEP 'EM COMING!

JS1 -- Whether I agree or not, my point was to debate something more interesting like the scientific method used for a hypothesis. See, it wasn't so bad, was it? And so civil too.

Great find Drive By.

Now I don't suppose you got any intel on the Gibson dust up? You know the one where the DOJ raided Gibson for using illegal wood.

Bad stuff right? "cept Taylor guitars use the same wood.

See if you can tell the class the difference between Taylor and Gibson. Hint: one is owned by a big Dem contributor and one is owned by a Republican.

Care to guess my man?

Politics sure is funny stuff, eh Drive By?

Like the NYT's article in Issa. NYT has had to issue how many retractions already?

Libbies, always grasping, yet their heros are more dirty than anyone.

Great find Drive By.

"Now I don't suppose you got any intel on the Gibson dust up"

Sorry, no. Gonna stick with this one for now.

But thanks for asking.

'Counselor'.

TP - See, it wasn't so bad, was it? And so civil too.

All that matters is that you're comforted by it.

All righty then, keep them blinders on.

But does it trouble you that the DOJ is doing the exact same thing you assert Perry did?

I'm guessing not.

Carry on my man, and hey - damn near quittin' time for you. Gonna go jump into a pool of Hannity?

Fantastic.

When Obama gets his colonoscopy, they will find a red wig!

JS1 wrote: All that matters is that you're comforted by it.

LOL, and I thought "compassionate conservatism" was an oxymoron. But Huntsman is right about the lack of substance. The Gibson dust up? A colonic? Hopes for substance dashed so quickly...

From the link above (so the casual reader can decide for him/herself and not just JS1's opinion). Here are the keys:

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.
2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party’s candidate is the sitting president.
4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge.
5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party’s candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party’s candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

....The book claims to have called the winner of the popular vote correctly in each election since 1860. (It would not have gotten the winner of the Electoral College right in 1876, 1888 or 2000, when the popular and electoral vote split.) That’s 38 elections in a row...

The biggest key is the weak GOP/TP field.

Let me sum it up for you TruePatriot: Staws, grasping at.

Me, I'm loving #7, cause it sure does not mean what you libbies think it means. Or more to the point it means exactly the opposite.

Policy changes - ObamaCare, approval rating in toilet, rammed through, single handely brought about 2010 electoral "shellacking."

Also please not the "unexpected" credit downgrade, unemployment and GDP numbers and overall economic outlook.

I know they are just trees, not a forest, and it's not going horribly bad fr Obama.

Also did the dude put his money where his mouth is and bet $ million on Obama? Of course not. He knows, so how come you all don't?

4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Not yet, but we're still tryin'!

The largest single indicator in the president's re-election will be the unemployment rate. Standing near 10% does not do Obama any favors.

The liberals are placing too much stock in a weak republican field. The end game has not run yet. You are viewing hopefuls only... I'm saying the real candidate has not stepped out onto the field yet. This IS going to be a dark horse year... you can bet your britches on it.

It's great to see a "conversation" even if folks disagree. We can look at elections in history and see how some keys do not have the impact predicted, such as unemployment/economy as conservatives are counting on now. Nor a GOP/TP candidate that lacks gravitas and is too far outside of the mainstream as progressives are counting on now. One current trend is an angry population who has thrown out the Party who won in the last election, which was Republicans in 2010.

I actually voted you up, WC, that was funny.

Good one, WCA, you're right, too.

If FR is such a great source of information, why are they conspicuosly silent defending Obama's record for the last 3 years?

Great point SteveH, I've been trying for months to get an answer to that question. Liberals are quick to criticize anyone from the right.... usually with smears and insults but are very quiet when an Obama blunder occurs! A sign of desperation by a group that has lost touch with America!

Yeah, yeah, dangerfield.

But $0.99?

Isn't that a little pricey?

I'm going with Huntsman.

MSNBC is always the most credible source for a viable alternative to President Obama.

Unless...it's an alternative from President Obama's side of the aisle.

Both parties learned a lesson from President Carter's defeat in 1980. If there is a strong challenger to the President, he weakens the President for the general election.

LBJ saw that RFK would likely receive a substantial following, if not the nomination, so he decided not to run, giving RFK a clear shot to the Whitehouse. RFK's death meant there was not a strong alternative and Nixon was elected.

Nixon had only token opposition in 1972, and won reelection in the biggest landslide any president has ever had.

The ultra-conservatives ran Pat Buchanan against George H.W. Bush in 1992 and lost the general election.

No one ran against Ronald Reagan...

You can learn by studying your history.

IF any one on the right makes fun of the crack-pot that is supposedly running our country , the lefties take offense. Lots of it. Race card, 'patriotism' card, blame Bush card, you got a weak hand but plenty of low cards.

I'll take a straight flush, 2-6, all winners, over the a mixed up run of the Joker (Ron Paul), the Red Queen of Crazy, (Bachman), the man who ain't got Jack (Gingrich), the one who can't decide if he's a one or an Ace (Romney), and of course, the man with the Gun, king crazy himself, Rick Perry.

I have never made fun of Huntsman so I cant explain it. Why does Huntsman seem more stable than the others? Because he holds views closer to yours? I would say why does the left and the left wing media feel the need to make fun of christians, fiscal conservatives, people who celebrate success with personal responsibility and accountability, a successful female or minority that holds more conservative views? When did Christianity become such a thing to make fun just because you have a differing opinion? Why is it that the left is so scared of anyone that doesnt hold the same view that they feel the need to somehow make that person seem stupid or less credible or less attractive? Does Hannity or conservatives make fun of all the left wing wackos? Do you hear the stuff that comes out of Pelosi's mouth sometimes? What about Obama's attending Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years preaching hate and you would rather make fun of Christians in texas? What about the left wing wackos like the wild greenies, anacharists, socialists, the absolutely nutty college professors, and I could go on and on. But you think anyone that you wouldnt vote for anyway is a wacko because they dont share your beliefs?

I'd take a shot at it, but Kirk would accuse me of personally attacking him, and that's certainly not true because I'm really personally attacking all the right-wing bloggers they way they personally attack all the left-wing "loony" liberals, including me, no matter how many times I write posts saying that I agree with them about something, like this:

What about the left wing wackos like the wild greenies, anacharists, socialists, the absolutely nutty college professors, and I could go on and on.

Nutty college professors? Really?! Good grief.

Anyway ... in order not to offend anyone, I won't make my guess that they see stable guys like Huntsman as kooks because they're all UNstable, themselves, and therefore stable looks unstable to them.

When did Christianity become such a thing to make fun just because you have a differing opinion?

Actually, I don't have a differing position from REAL Christianity, and would never make fun of Jesus, who is, in fact, a hero of mine, despite the fact that I'm not a fan of religion in general.

But when I see some phony baloney faux Christianity, like we see from more than a few of the Republican candidates, and especially hypocrites like Rick Perry, I take great delight in making fun of it.

I don't know DBO, in the Left's Insane world, a sane man would appear insane.

Kind of explains the crack pot in the White House, now doesn't it?

Now, AM, no fair reading my mind........

LoL WCA, absolutely what I was thinking. Well, that and "great minds ..." ;-)

The GOP/TP candidates are weak because the Republican Party itself is weak. Conservatives are desperate for "rising stars" then subject those possible leaders of the future to a straight-jacket purity test. Marco Rubio is a good example--he had to make a 360 on Medicare.

The only other possibility out there right now is Rudy Giuliani, which is probably only promotional just like Trump, Palin and others. Giuliana may think the 10-year anniversary provides him an opportunity to use 9-11 as a verb yet again. But the truth of his poor management, for example insisting on a command center in the WTC against all advise and doing nothing with Federal funds for communication to coordinate police helicopters with firefighters that would have saved many firefighter lives, is why Giuliani is disliked by these agencies in NY and therefore not a good idea to drudge up.

Seriously, is there even one competent Republican out there? If Gingrich could have the straight-jacket removed, he actually would be the GOP/TPs best bet in a general election. Well, if he had the money...

Kirk- Re: your 4.3 post-

We do NOT make fun of Chrisitans or any of those others you mention, UNTIL they stat trying to tell the rest of us they hold the ONE and ONLY, TRUE key to how it all is supposed to work to the benefit to ALL of us.

WCA- nice comment about the President of the United States of America.

You really should.......keep 'em coming.

Uh...DBO...

Plastic Jesus....Man in the Sky ring a bell for you?

Applied to any and all who believe in God by the most "popular" posters on this site.

Hey DBO, Nice comments about Presedential Candidates, soon to be President.

Any chance you ever made any deragotory comments about any previuos Presidents?

Crack Pot was your word, not mine.

I don't have a problem with Christians, I do have a problem with people who appear to aspouse that the literal truth of every word in the Bible, and belief in the same, is the only way to heaven and if you don't believe likewise you are evil and will go straight to hell.

I also have a problem with politicians who won't give a straight answer, even to children.

Thus, I don't like Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, or Michelle Bachman.

I don't know, or care to know, the religious beliefs of Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons, but have not made their religion what they are campaigning on, the obvious reason that they might alienate even more evangelical christians.

Anna Molly, dont worry you didnt offend me as I dont have you on ignore yet ha. Well let me give you an example of one college professor from Duke when my daughter was there in 2008 who gave her a sheet of paper and said match all of the characteristics of a democrat and a republican to those on the sheet. Even you would have been appalled at the characteristics. During the election, virtually everyone of her professors told her a vote for McCain was some bad thing or another. Of course my daughter being a the idealistic young person we all are at that age was going to vote for Obama anyway (I voted for John Anderson at the same age as the third party candidate). I could tell you the same stuff that went on at my other daughter's college. Its kind of nutty yes. But again dont you get that I use stereotypes on purpose no different than many of the posters on here that I am responding to.

I agree with you that I think the GOP has a real problem with its values platform. I dont have any issue with heartfelt Christians who walk the walk. But you have to admit, the posters on here go overboard and attack Christianity way too much and lump everyone together. I dont see anyone attacking Jeremiah Wright's wacko extreme views in his church. Extremism of all forms is always bad and consistency of views on that provides greater credibility.

As for Perry, I truly dont understand what is wacko about his religious views. I dont mean pandering to a religious group for votes no different than Obama and the black churches. Can you or someone else enlighten me?

Always nice to find someone that subscribes to the old "two wrongs don't make a right....but three do" kind of guy.

Not sure I ever used Plastic Jesus or Man in the Sky, tho. Also not sure if supposition about whether I did, or did not, make a deragotory comment aobut any previous president qualifies me for the spotlight in your reply, but- OK.

(BTW- "man in the sky" is a slam??- who knew?)

How about the President Dirp101? You Ok with the Liberation Theology Christianity practiced by the President?

Straight answers? Sat in the pew for 20 years and claimed he hadn't heard anything?

Sorry DBO

"Invisible Man in the Sky"

"As for Perry, I truly dont understand what is wacko about his religious views. I dont mean pandering to a religious group for votes no different than Obama and the black churches:

"People in churches" are real, fellow human beings. "Religious views" are views of the holder, and open to speculation to at least some degree.

Sorry DBO

"Invisible Man in the Sky"

You've seen Him then? He's NOT 'invisible"?

(Does he look like all the picutes we see of him that artists paint? I mean it- I've always been currious...)

Dirp, I dont agree with that literal interpretation either but I also dont believe the Catholic church's view on contraceptives but I dont call them extremist wackos. Just because they share the same biblical view or theology as you doesnt make them wackos. I dont believe in a ton of what you guys say in terms progressive views and that doesnt make you wackos. Do you call muslims wackos even the moderate as their belief system is very similar to the right wing christians? What about jews? Orthodox jews? People arent wackos because they dont share your theology.

WCA, I trully don't care about the President's Christianity. I am glad to see you are not one of those who claims the President is a secret muslim.

As to the 20 years, yeah, been there, done that. If you are a member of a church you find that it is very hard to leave, particularly if you at all involved in the community. President Obama did the right thing when Rev. Wrights rhetoric continued to be too extreme, he asked him to tone it down. When Rev. Wright could not, the Obama's left the church.

I take issue with Rick Perry's on the sleave, "super Christian" version of religion. I find it worse if he is just pandoring to the conservative christian right.

Does he look like all the picutes we see of him that artists paint? I mean it- I've always been currious...)

Yeah, DBO, you never make fun of people of faith.

DBO, you don't care about the President's Christianity, but you care about Perry's. The President Denied his and Perry acknowledges his.

Nice deflection, though, coming to the conclusion that I think the President is a Muslim. What a small little world you must live in.

But you think we are all stupid, ignorant, etc. so what does it matter?

How's that "making fun of"?

But yes- I DO question an awful lot when it comes to faith, and why one group of people should be subservient to another group's beliefs. Nothing wrong with that. If it makes people think, well, the intent isn't to make them uncomfortable or subject them to ridicule. It's just questioning. Plain and simple.

@DIRP101 I don't particularly care what religion the President is but he must have been a slow learner if it took him 20 years to figure out Reverend Wright was extreme.

To anyone that either likes or dislikes Christianity, the only thing I have to say about it is... it's a choice, not a debate. Each individual either chooses to be a Christian, or he doesn't. It's that simple. It's not the Christian's job to judge anyone for anything. Everyone has faults and everyone has sinned. How each individual deals with it is their choice and theirs alone. Just make sure you choose wisely... we all answer for ourselves in the end.

"DBO, you don't care about the President's Christianity, but you care about Perry's"

Are you sure you have the right guy- not sure I've made any comments about either's personal relationship with their God?

Now- You ARE correct, in that I don't care about Obama's Christianity, But neither do I care about Perry's. BUT- let either one start telling me our government should operate according to EITHER'S belief, and I'll get pretty concerned, no matter WHICH one does it. There IS a legit concern there, don't you think?

| "DBO, you don't care about the President's Christianity, but you care about Perry's"

Are you sure you have the right guy

Yeah Buzz isn't a real deep thinker kind of a guy. He's more into personal destruction, usually inadvertently of himself.

Great post Buzz. Keep'm coming.

Brianb. I agree with you completely, but I can not say Perry, Bachman, Palin or any politician that legislates their beliefs on individuals agree with you. Religious beliefs are birth control, gay rights, marriage ( a religious institution) or abortion to name a few. These all go to beliefs nothing more yet who is judging their fellow man or woman. The right. What happens when the tide turns and another religion takes hold and demands that christian faith be abolished. It can happen, what then a religious war. Again I agree with you your beliefs are yours and mine are mine. I do not push my beliefs on anyone but I can not say the same for Christians and that is not trying to lump them all together but I know very few who really walk the walk.

OK, smart mouth Smiff- cut and paste one in where I compare Obama's and Perry's Christianity, and further- show where I approve of one over the other.

Well...we're waiting.....

| Yeah Buzz isn't a real deep thinker kind of a guy. He's more into personal destruction, usually inadvertently of himself.

Well...we're waiting.....

Case in point.

That makes no sense at all, Smiff.

Now- back up your mouth with the citation I asked you for.

Oh- no can do? Well, ok then.

Dismissed.

DBO I think this would qualify maybe not as a comparison but your intent is obvious.

drive-by-observer

Are evangelical supporters like athletic supporters? Do they support nuts? Seems like maybe the correct answer is c) Yes.

#10 - Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:44 PM EDT

Don't waste your key strokes - Drive By is a "company man."

He punches out everyday at 5:00 sharp.

He's long gone, listening to Hannity on Fox radio on his way home to a nice can of Bud.

Drive By's got the life.

Awww Spanky...still denigrating I see...well isn't that special. If you have anything relevant to say about anything, I'm sure we would all like to hear it. If not, your seat at FoxNation and The Blaze is getting cold...isn't it about time you head back?

Tick tock, "counselor"...tick...tock...

Tis the season... Many people are offended by the methods of evangelicals. Sometimes they go overboard because they get so wrapped up in their message. I've seen a guy with a bible showing someone about being saved and the person receiving the preaching was about as interested as a sleeping dog. My assessment was... the person doing the preaching wasn't paying attention to what he was doing. He could have very well turned that person against Christianity for the rest of his life. If those assigned to planting seeds would do just that, then Christianity would flourish. Many times less is more. I've often said... religion is man's way of trying to control God.

I am not sure what you guys are saying about religion. I constantly see the references to right wing religious extremists and various derogatory terms. So far no one has stepped up to explain to me what makes Perry's religious views bad. I understand he panders to the right for purposes of his nomination but its not like any of you are voting in the republican primary so I dont understand why that is bad for a candidate to get elected. Second, someone said they dont like it when someone wears their religion on their sleeve and it impacts their political positions which impacts the government. Isnt that kind of circular? Isnt everyone's views based on some experience or knowledge they feel they have from somewhere? The fact that someone believes that abortion is wrong, or a marriage is between a man and a woman might based on a belief system that is totally different than yours might make them a candidate you dont vote for but it doesnt make them wacko. Most black churches feel that homosexuality is wrong but I dont see anyone calling for the heads of the black churches and calling them nutjobs. I dont agree with any of the judgemental aspects of conservative religions nor their views on gay marriage or abortion but I dont think they are wackos or treat candidates that pander to them as nut jobs. What about candidates pandering to Daryl Hannah's group protesting the Transcanada pipeline that is going create thousands of jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil? I think those people can be characterized as wackos in the same manner you classify conservative religious people as wackos.

i think you're right thats what they want anyway, but alot of people i know are going to hold out for bachman or palin

I sincerely hope you're wrong, wbush, and I pray that Republicans are much smarter than that. George, do you think people would vote for Palin over Perry if she decided to run? I know she's flirting with the idea and testing the waters.

Yup, I've been saying that all along, the "wacky pack" can continue these sham debates all they want, this will be over by S.C.

Misha always looks like she's flirting, either that or zoning out. She's a very well paid, spineless noodle.

That's because nobody knows who Huntsman is.

Nah, they know who his is, he just doesn't matter to the GOP ideological zealots - compared to them, he is a liberal...

And it's a really good thing that lots of people besides Texans are voting in the next election!