E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBreaking down last night’s slugfest in Simi Valley… Perry steals the show early and then fades… “Steady Eddie” Romney… Bachmann fails to break through… What will be Obama’s tone tonight?… His speech to a joint session of Congress begins at 7:00 pm ET… Perry campaigns in CA, while Gingrich is in NH… And David Gregory chats with Joe Lieberman.
SIMI VALLEY, CA -- In the most combative and entertaining debate of the Republican primary season so far, GOP front-runners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney engaged early and often last night at the Reagan Presidential Library. They clashed over their economic records, Romney’s health-care law in Massachusetts, and Social Security. (In fact, six months ago, who would have thought that the battle between the likely final two GOP candidates would be fought over Social Security?) The debate provided further evidence that the GOP race is shaping up to be a two-man contest between the current governor of Texas and the former governor of Massachusetts -- a contrast that will be about both style and substance as the debate showed last night.
AP
Republican presidential candidate Gov. Rick Perry (TX).
*** Perry steals the show then fades: As for Perry’s performance in his first debate, he stole the show in the first 45 minutes, assailing -- with a smile -- not only Romney, but also even Ron Paul and Karl Rove. But he wasn’t as sharp near the end, especially in a discussion about science and climate change where he seemed to side with the 17th-Century Catholic Church in not believing that the Earth rotated around the sun. (“Just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said, here is the fact -- Galileo got outvoted for a spell,” he said.) Overall, Perry showed that he was a fighter, and the result was both good and bad for him. In particular, the fight over Social Security -- where he doubled down in calling it a “Ponzi Scheme” and came in with a plan to own that -- revealed his strength (he’s unafraid and won’t flip flop), but also his weakness (can the eventual GOP nominee say that about the most popular government program?). As Romney’s camp made clear in the spin room after the debate, they see this as their clearest contrast. If you didn’t think that the Florida primary (with all the seniors who live there) was going to be HUGE, you now know… By the way, the minute Perry uttered the word "Galileo," he guaranteed a big presence on tonight's “Daily Show,” but we digress.
AP
Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
*** Steady Eddie: Romney was steady Eddie. Unlike his past two debates, he wasn’t able to always stick to his talking points on the economy and Obama, but he remained poised and confident. He also knew when he shouldn’t pick certain fights (like ducking the health-care discussion). So three debates and three pretty good performances for Romney. You couldn’t say that about him in 2007-2008. A final point: Romney making the electability argument on Social Security -- “Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security but who is committed to saving Social Security” -- might ring true for the political journalists, analysts, and strategists watching the debate, but is it something that will motivate the GOP electorate? Democrats have shown that electability arguments do matter to them and can sway voters (see Kerry '04 or even Jim Webb in ‘06). But the current Republican Party? The evidence in 2010 was that electability arguments didn't gain traction, see Nevada and Delaware but also, for instance, Florida governor.
AP
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-6).
*** Bachmann fails to break through: If there was a loser at last night’s debate, it was Michele Bachmann, who needed to prove that the GOP contest is a three-person race. But she wasn’t able to achieve that. Indeed, that she has gone from star (at the Ames Straw Poll) to afterthought (last night) in less than a month is an incredible development. It seemed that all the non-frontrunners last night -- Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, even Newt Gingrich -- had a strategy to insert themselves in the debate, even as they knew the focus would be on the newcomer. But Bachmann didn’t. Regarding Huntsman, his performance last night was substantially better than at his first debate in Iowa. The question is whether anyone in the GOP is listening to his message. Here’s an example: When he delivered this line last night -- “We can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy. We've got to win voters.” -- it didn’t receive any applause.
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
*** What will be Obama’s tone tonight? Of course, the big event today will be President Obama’s 7:00 pm ET speech on the economy and jobs to a joint session of Congress. We have a good idea what the president will say. Per NBC’s Kristen Welker, Democratic officials familiar with Obama’s plan have said the speech will be a call to action; his plan will be comprehensive; it includes bipartisan ideas; and it will make the case for what can be done now on the economy. On the “TODAY” show, Chief of Staff Bill Daley revealed the plan would be officially dubbed, "The American Jobs Act." And he seemed to make it clear that the president would not be offering up any ideas that were complete non-starters with the GOP. Every major idea they are putting forward are ones that normally get some GOP support. So the drama for tonight: what we don’t know -- what will be his tone tonight? Will we see Frustrated Obama? Conciliatory Obama? Feisty Obama? Or Inspirational Obama?
AP
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH).
*** Boehner’s message: As for congressional Republicans, a GOP aide tells NBC’s Luke Russert that Speaker Boehner plans to deliver the following message to his conference this morning: “Majority Leader Cantor and I sent a letter to the president on Tuesday. The purpose was to give the president a roadmap of where we could find common ground on the American peoples’ top priority: jobs. We hope he might include things we agree on in the speech tonight.” More Boehner: “We've also invited more than a dozen private-sector job creators to be guests in the Speaker's box tonight. Each of these job creators has a story to tell about Washington interfering with their efforts to create more American jobs.”
*** On the 2012 trail: The day after last night’s GOP debate, Perry remains in California, attending a meet and greet… And Gingrich holds a town hall in New Hampshire.
*** Thursday's "Daily Rundown" line-up (live from Burbank!): RNC Chairman Reince Priebus reacts to the GOP debate and gives his prebuttal to tonight’s jobs speech by President Obama… NBC’s Mike Viqueira with more on the speech, and Politico’s Jonathan Martin with debate analysis… Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum on what kind of message the president will deliver tonight… And more 2012 with USA Today’s Susan Page, Democratic strategist/MSNBC political analyst Karen Finney and Republican strategist Kevin Madden.
*** Thursday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell today interviews Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the White House’s Melody Barnes on the president’s speech, Tea Party leader Mark Meckler, and Dem Rep. Elijah Cummings.
*** David Gregory chats with Lieberman: As part of his weekly “Press Pass,” NBC’s David Gregory chatted with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-D) on 2012 and the economy.
Countdown to NV-2 and NY-9 special elections: 5 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 61 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 151 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Reflections on the Aftermath of September 11, 2001
As we approach the 10th anniversary, I think back
to that awful day and what we lost then and during the ensuing ten years and
sadly are still losing, vast amounts of treasure and most precious of all,
lives of our citizens. Have we learned
anything in the past 10 years, anything at all?
I remember that morning and as the enormity of the
destruction sunk in, I remember thinking, our lives will never be the same
again. Not knowing how change would happen,
but certain it would.
We lost some of our freedoms, the carefree way we traveled,
especially by air. We lost the openness we had toward strangers, our thoughts
of others we don’t know have become suspicious, sometimes wary of their words
and or their motives. We have to be
very protective of our personal information and with whom we may share it
As a country we lost a lot, apart from the loss of life and
treasure, we lost our way in who we used to be. It seems so sad because it
could have been better. At first there
was that feeling of togetherness, we clung to each other, in our shock, then,
we will rebuild and be as strong if not stronger than ever. Other nations, felt
our loss and our grief, standing with us, as we had, for so many of them in
their hour of need.
Then we were told to go shopping, not to bother our pretty
little heads, we will get through this, we will bring the terrorists to
justice, we will hunt those that hurt us no matter what it takes. Not matter what it took, we were going to do
it, whether the law said it was OK or not. It was stated, you are either with
us or you are with the terrorists, no matter what it takes, my way or the
highway.
Now, reading excerpts of VP Cheney’s memoir and watching his
interviews, it comes back like a bad dream, the invasion of Iraq, for weapons
of mass destruction, none were ever found. The loss of life, over four thousand
American lives, countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Over a hundred thousand American service people
injured there, many of them so seriously they will require ongoing health
services for the rest of their lives.
For all this and so much more, he has no regrets.
For the first term of the Bush administration, he was, for
all intents and purposes the President, he pushed for military action in Iraq. We will be greeted with flowers and cheers he
said, as he bulled his agenda through because George Bush was never cut out to
be president. Cheney had manipulated
himself to be VP, and though his daddy had been President, GWB never had any
experience other than the backslapping role of Governor of Texas, the best job
in the world, he told Rick Perry his Lt. Governor.
We found that during this time, torture and abuse were done
in the name of the People of the United States, the Constitution was trampled
on, the moral high ground lost, perhaps forever and the country is now nearly
bankrupt. Some even made political careers out of selling fear.
Out of 9/11 has come the extreme partisanship we see
today. The lack of courtesy and respect
towards those who are different or do things differently, the lack of unity,
the striving towards a common cause, we are all in this together, is no more. M Bin Laden
is gone, yet we still fight his followers as we should and we seem to be doing
it smarter than before with good results.
Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, he couldn’t
have known that the destruction he wrought that awful day, would balloon into a
financial disaster too, aided by zealots and nincompoops who didn’t figure how
to pay for the wars except put them on a credit card for future generations to
pay, in addition, gave tax cuts to the rich to further dig the hole we fell
into.
What should have
united us, has divided us, and the unscrupulous have taken advantage of it all.
I’m looking forward to being entertained by the post-debate wailing and flailing from the regular FR lefty liberals today.
However, when all is said and nothing is done, they will still be stuck with the reality that Barry’s economic policies are simply not working. And all indications are that tonight’s big speech is just going to be a “Mini Me” version of the failed 2009 Porkulus bill. And history does not look like it’s on Barry’s side for tonight’s big speech:
From MSDNC.com:
Big White House economic speeches that failed
7 times the president has addressed a joint session on the subject — with 7 flops
President Barack Obama will give a speech before a joint session of Congress Thursday night, in which he will lay out a job creation plan. There have been only seven speeches about economic and business issues before a joint session of Congress since the end of The Great Depression. 24/7 Wall St. has reviewed these speeches and found that they had virtually no effect on the economy, despite the detailed proposals.
Of the seven addresses, two were about labor trouble, and both by Harry Truman: One about the railroad strike in 1946, and the other about the steel strike in 1952. Neither speech was effective. The strikes were settled by labor and management irrespective of the speeches. As a matter of fact, the railroad strike ended the day of the president’s speech.
The balance of the speeches addressed different crises such as soaring energy costs, inflation, and recession. Each of these speeches offered specific road maps for economic improvement. While each president gave a broad description of the trouble, most offered a specific set of solutions. Rarely were any of the plans adopted, either because of political opposition or because the problems resolved themselves. In many cases, the economy got worse after the presidential address. It is impossible to trace any recovery to the presidential proposals in almost every case. Those that were enacted into law were so substantially changed by Congress that they barely resembled the presidents’ suggestions.
YOU Betcha! lol
How come MSNBC didn't ask any of the clowns WHY do corporations making record profits require additional tax breaks?
The audience applause when Perry bragged about killing over 200 human beings sent a chill down my spine!
Supurb post this morning Gingerbread Mamma!
Thank you I needed that! ;o)
Excellent reflections and thoughts, Gingerbread Mamma. Can't add anything to it.
Great post, Gingerbread Mamma. I'm so sorry that the day-to-day of the debates and the President's speech this week have stopped us from reflecting on that horrific day and reassessing the aftermath as we should from the vantage point of 10 years. It didn't have to be the way it has been.
WH Chief of Staff Bill Daley : “Daley said the president's American Job Act will be formally introduced next week.”
Someone tell me again what the big speech is about tonight, if they are going to actually lay out his plan next week?
In other news Unemployment rose “unexpectedly” again last week. The previous weeks numbers were revised upwards. Are these analysts who week after week report “Unexpected” numbers the same guys advising the President? Why aren't the numbers ever revised down? Maybe because no one remebers the actual revised numbers??
The next time NBC puts a poll out, I hope they remember to highlight the caveat that their “Pollsters are concerned” about the numbers for Obama. Hit ‘em so hard yesterday they had to take pretty much the whole day off from First Read. I know Chuck really thought that he hadn’t said that out loud. Bet he had some splainin’ to do yesterday.
Gingerbread Mamma:
Your words really moved me . . . thanks.
All the idiot from Albany could muster this morning is a rerun?
Poor Joey - he's out of gas! lol
Gingerbread,
Wise and true words.
You may regard Bin Laden as the victor in the war against Islamic extremism, Gingerbread Mamma...but, among (and with the help of) others, the President is still fighting Islamic extremism.
What's more, it's clear that President Obama is making full use of the anti-terror infrastructure bequeathed to him by his predecessor.
Apparently President Obama doesn't share your defeatist attitude.
Were he still around to weigh in on the matter, I suspect that Osama Bin Laden would agree.
Well GM, You are right that the disrespect started after 9/11. Specifically in the way Democrats treated the office of the President. So you all should stop whining about the house you laid the foundation for.
GBM: Congratulations on a superb post!
Governor Rick Perry calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and the media/Liberals (same thing) are all upset. A Ponzi scheme is defined as:
That's a fairly close definition of Social Security. The program is collapsing because it now depends on deficit spending to be funded, Our own President confirmed that fact when he said he wasn't sure if SS checks would not go out unless the debt ceiling was raised. With the Baby Boomers retiring, there just is not money going into the system to pay for those retirees benefits. Again, Ponzi schemes are destined to collapse because the earnings, the SS taxes on the workers, are less than the payments to the "investors", i.e., the retirees. There is no "lockbox", SS is a pay as you go system, and it is failing.
Rick Perry is correct to call SS what it is, a Ponzi scheme.
Stupidity packaged in well-tailored suits - that's what the Republicans presented last night. The main course at this feast of ignorance and hatred was tax cuts. Tax cuts for the insatiable appetites of Big Money and Megabuck Monstrocorp. How very delicious and they can starve government at the same time. And for dessert, we'll drool over a helping of capital punishment.
That wasn't the Reagan Library. It was the Roman Colosseum, and in supreme irony, the Republican "Christians" filled the seats. The poor? The ill? The infirm? The helpless? "Thumbs down!" To hell with "The Great Beatitudes", give us "The Failed Platitudes".
So stupid was the gathering of bloodthirsty sycophants that the candidates could trot out the name of St. Ronald of Reagan, time and again, and expect applause. Only Mr. Paul was honest enough to point out that St. Ron hugely increased government spending and debt, a miserable failure by today's G.O.P. standard.
How does anyone with at least a double-digit I.Q. take these candidates seriously? Herman Cain promises all the government you'll ever need for only nine-ninety-nine; arithmetically impossible, but it works for pizza. Santorum has nothing, absolutely nothing but a fervent belief that a theocracy under his guidance will return us to greatness. Bachmann assures us that she can say, "No", to everything. That's a stunning qualification. Gingrich? "I Reagan can Reagan win Reagan and Reagan cut Reagan taxes. Did I mention Reagan?" Huntsman is a pleasant, earnest, and vibrant clone.
Then there's Ron Paul. In a perfect world, his libertarian views triumph. He is sincere, he is consistent, he is true to his beliefs. Only two things work against Mr. Paul. The media refuse to treat him fairly and this is NOT a perfect world.
Romney truly looked and even sounded Presidential. His performance in years past is irrelevant. What worked or failed in the past is not prologue to the future. The world is going through a wrenching realignment and change, but he has no new ideas to accommodate and meet that change. Nothing.
Finally, there's Perry; a first-order Luddite. Science? We don't need no stinking science. He conjures up Galileo as an example. YO! Rick! Galileo was right. Every single position Perry takes is framed by money. Money trumps pollution, declining education, declining infrastructure; nothing is more important than money. Amazingly, this lifelong government dependent trashes the government that has made him wealthy AND allows him to tell the lie that he has balanced the Texas budget. And he has the nerve to tell us the President just might be an "abject liar".
Each of them will destroy Social Security. Each will destroy Medicare and gut Medicaid. Each of them live in a world disconnected from reality. In their world, the private sector does everything better. Government is the enemy. The truth says otherwise, but we know that in a war, truth is the first casualty. Make no mistake - this is a war, and the defeat and destruction of the working class will mean victory for the G.O.P.
They cannot be allowed to reduce us to slavery. We must fight back and crush this menace.
President Obama - WILL YOU PLEASE STAND UP AND LEAD!?!?!?
The audience last evening, cheering gleefully about the use of the death penalty in Texas....Slick Rick with his proud smirk....was chilling.
As VP Biden said......Barbarians!
GBM, really wonderful work - wise, thoughtful and insightful. Thanks you!
Thanks all, for this is just a little of what's been lost as I see it. There are so many aspects we should have focused on if only wiser and cooler heads had prevailed.
Now, we can only learn lessons, and be more attentive to what potential candidates say and whom they select as their running mate. For the last two Presidential cycles, Republicans have not chosen wisely.
I put this up on the prior FR thread, but it clearly fits with the discussion here:
Congress – Especially GOP Members – in the Spotlight After President’s Speech
President Obama
tonight puts the entire Congress on notice:
Work together to accomplish things for the good of the country, or face
the wrath of the American nation.
This includes members of his own party who carp about a
White House that has doggedly striven to build a consensus for actions that
will not only boost economic growth and job creation in America, but in the
process also contribute to global economic development.
But those Senators
and Representatives most under public scrutiny will be Republicans – especially
the hard-line devotees of the Tea Party.
As the nation discovers more about the Tea Party almost daily, the
hypocrisy and sheer cynicism of their positions becomes more evident and public
outrage about their obstructionist tactics spreads. Now revelation that the movement was in major
part orchestrated by the Koch Brothers in a series of secret meetings only
stokes the fires of voter resentment.
By enduring the insults of House Speaker Boehner with calm
diffidence, President Obama has moved determinedly to make the coming election
a referendum on not only his proposals, but also on the performance of
Congress. The President has boxed the
nay-sayers into a very, very tight corner.
His Labor Day speech plainly foreshadowed tonight’s address.
And the President also stakes out a significant difference
between his approach and that of the rigid right. While the right wing promotes an agenda that
would abandon traditional American values and the “social compact” crafted
between the people and government, the President shows he wishes to strengthen and
refresh the values that made a great nation.
Last night, all the
Republican presidential hopefuls basically agreed that the old policies of
Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush are the ones they intend to apply, with an
even fiercer vengeance. They basically
all agreed that the achievements of President Obama, including
vitally-important health insurance reform, would be assaulted and undone. That’s an insult to the American voters, who
sent the President to office precisely to accomplish what he has despite Republican
obstructionism.
Worse still, it’s a Republican agenda that not only failed
miserably over the past 30 years, but nearly bankrupted the nation and caused
the Bush Recession.
The President is putting
Congress on notice, tonight. The American
nation is, and will be watching. Can the
Republicans recover enough of their past dignity and patriotic feeling to
decide to rise to the challenge President Obama will deliver?
LOved you post
The loss of shared common purpose and unity between republicans and democrats did not happen on 9/12, it happened when Bush/Cheney and the neocons led us into an unncessary war in Iraq, lied, and tortured in the name of We the People. There's a difference between disrespect for the President and disrespect for the policies of that President and his Vice President.
Hiya Bev - good to see you up & running again!
Yeah, it's all about the "tone". Forget about the substance, of which there will just be the same old warmed over failed ideas Obama has been trying for nearly 3 years.
So rather than Obama calling this massive new and unpaid spending "stimulus", a word that he has certainly worn out in the past three years, will he now be calling it a "kinetic workers employment strategy"?
Typical Obama, no real plans, just new spin.
A side note - Simi Valley for decades was where many Los Angeles Police Department officers lived. It was the site of the origins of a terrible riot in Southern California. It's not exactly a pretty place, and it's actually very much out of the way in reference to the geography of the region. What a perfect spot for the GOP clown car to unload.
LOved you post Gingerbead Mama
You told it just like it is.
Forget about the substance, of which there will just be the same old warmed over ideas Smiffy has been trying for nearly 3 years.
Typical JoAnna, no real plans, just new spin... lol
Well Jody, my disrespect (disagreement) for the policies of the current President have had me labeled by your friends here as a racist, bigot, nazi, evangelical, un-patriotic, un-American, ignorant, stupid neo-con, who, on a regular basis by Feisty and Bev have been told to STFU.
So pray tell, what's the difference?
JoAnnaSmith,
There is one difference between a Ponzi and the federal government's SS ....... a Ponzi relies on voluntary contributions whereas with SS, the federal government forces you to contribute.
“Right now in the Republican party it’s a battle between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Not only have both men been governors, but both could just as easily have found themselves cast in one of those middle-aged-male-kayaker-with-prostate-problems advertisements.” - Jon Stewart
Looks like all the FR lefty liberals are on the same page today trying to ignore the economic reality and my "rerun" post is right on the mark.
None of them are sharing their excitement and anticipation of Barry's big, bold, new, "fresh ideas" (as was promised when it was announced in early August LOL!!!), new jobs speech tonight.
Oh well, there's always the football game for them to look forward to.
David Walker, John A.,--terrific posts! Can't add a thing to either.
Well, White Collar, perhaps it is because you are equally disrespectful to those with whom you disagree as well as disrespectful to the person of Obama not his policies.
Freaking Unbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevable!!!!!
The clowns and one pig (Newt Gringich)spent all that time cheering on their same ole rehashed version of doing nothing the Constitution or Declaration of Independence says.
The Founding Fathers spoke of promoting the general welfare.
Newt Gringich should learn how to be cordial and the meaning of socialist/ Marxist. Really he needs to stop stuffing his dam* face. He now not only looks like a pig he acts like one.
What left me aghast was no called out the KiIller- In- Chief Gov. Perry about the jobs he created with stimulus money during the debate.
A blogger post this on the Obama Photo Diarieres...
Obama has spent the last 3 years being politically crucified every single day of his life. Every bill, appointment, speech, message, every idea and every action he has brought forth has been rigorously condemned, criticized, mocked and discarded by friend and foe alike. You and I would not still be standing if this was our daily lives. Yet this man wants to do it all over again for four more years. Don’t tell me he’s got no backbone.
I agree wholeheartedly.
You may want to record Obama's speech tonight. It could be the worst one ever given, by anyone.
Fantastic post GBM. I haven't said anything about the anniversary of 9/11 because I couldn't come up with the words to say it correctly. I still don't need to...you've said it all.
On the subject of the debate David Walker pointed out the thing that really matters. Everyone will debate if Perry's "ponzi scheme" comment was a gaffe. That ignores the more important point...that only crooks and liars have to hide their agenda in that way. It should serve as a stern warning to the voters on the hazards of voting Republican in the upcoming election. I'll quote David again;
Romney said something about needing a president who loves America.
Romney, the classic corporate wh*re. Who will say anything, do anything to get what he wants.
We need a president who loves America?
Is he kidding? How freakin' grammer school is that?
Think Progress:
To be clear, Romney is no centrist. The former Massachusetts governor’s new economic plan includes $6.6 trillion in giveaways to corporations and the wealthy. He wants a federal “right to work” law. Romney even told Iowa fair-goers that he believes “corporations are people.”
The “most factually problematic” criticisms from last night’s Republican presidential debate were aimed at Democratic policies, as Republicans repeatedly flubbed issues like climate change, health care, and Social Security, a New York Times fact-check found. Among the most egregious: Mitt Romney’s claims about Obama’s energy policy were “largely untrue..."
________________________________
Nice crowd last night applauding executions. Perry loses no sleep over possible innocent individuals executed?
What the hell is wrong with people in this country? They're never happy unless we're killing someone. It makes us look tough evidently. Morons.
"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". Mitt Romney
Riiiiiiiiight Romney. You love America so much you wanted those people to lose their jobs.
Classic classic corporate tool. The ones you can't trust.
Amen Beverly! :o)
Know what's odd?
I can remember Hillary Clinton stating emphatically, in 2004, to the republicans attending the convention in New York, "don't DARE politicize 9/11!"
I wonder if she reads this blog- I'm pretty sure one of the treehouse kids is convinced that the White House does.
I wonder if you'd be so blasé about doing it if you'd lost the friends and neighbors I lost that day.
I wonder if there is anything so low that an Obama worshipper would not stoop to, in order to prop their idol.
There's a speech tonight? Who knew? ;-)
John A.
Where have you been, 7 0f 10 Americans believe Obama is taking us in the wrong direction - 4 of 10 Americans believe OBAMA HAS NO IDEA HOW TO CREATE JOB.
People don't believe in Obama - he has no clue - who is even listening anymore other than the worshippers?
Put someone on notice?
When is Obama going to get the notice that the American people don't care about speeches 900 days late, failed Keynesian blather ......
Joanna: gee...already decided Obama is giving "the worst" speech ever before he gives it? And you want to be taking seriously?
Hey Pat, Detroit doesn't need any help going bankrupt. The Democrats who have run the city for decades are doing a fine job all by themselves.
From this morning's Detroit Free Press:
The City of Detroit is in jeopardy of losing $54 million a year in federal funds to help poor people unless officials can reel in corruption at the troubled Human Services Department, the city's Chief Operations Officer Chris Brown said at a hearing Wednesday.
Brown said the FBI and city officials are investigating at least five ousted Human Services officials over misspent federal tax dollars. The accusations range from employees using grants intended for poor people to buy a car and washer and dryer sets, to using gift cards to conceal the illegal purchases.
These "Officials" also spent $200,000 on new office furniture. Money that was intended to help poor mothers. Compassionate Democrats? Yeah, right.
Come on over to Detroit, I'll be happy to show you the carnage that 40 years of Democrat rule have wrought on my city.
Gingerbread Mama, David Waker, John A - excellent one and all.
Very well done GBM. Excellent.!
AP, some of the righties posting here are just so entirely nuts, there's no point wasting time on them. The "ignore" choice contributes well to calm thoughts and clear reasoning.
Laughable. The speech will be another waste of time, just like all of Obama's speeches about the economy have been. The man is out of the loop, he wouldn't know how to create a job if his life depended on it.
The speech will mostly be the same old of what he's babbled about before. More infrastructure spending, payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and some kind of tax incentives for businesses to hire. This is nothing new, and in fact is the status quo of what Obama is doing today, and we see the results. The speech will be extremely partisan with Obama accusing the Republicans and the Tea Party of blocking his agenda, which isn't difficult to do because Obama doesn't appear to have an economic agenda, at least not one that has a chance of working.
It's what Obama won't talk about that is important. Entitlement reform, tax simplification, reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, lowing the corporate tax rates, and domestic energy development (other than "Green" jobs). These are the things that are hard to do but must be done for the economy to finally recover. Until Obama is willing to address these issues in a constructive way (and not just "Put them on the table"), Obama is destined to continue to fail. And Obama won't talk about them, because in Obama's tiny little space in his head where his brain should be, Obama thinks the government creates jobs. Obama will never learn that businesses are the real jobs creators.
To be clear, Obama is working on Plan M because Plan's A-L have failed. He's really out of ideas and is just thrashing around hoping something good might happen. But with his administration policies and poor leadership from both Obama and his economic team, nothing is really going to change.
Hey, Albany Joe, unlike the GOPTP who have dissed it already with TPers boycotting it, we're saving comments about President Obama's jobs speech until after we hear it!
P.S. I'm looking forward to tonight's Presidential address as well as opening night of the NFL season.
I almost spit my coffee all over my screen when I read this line: what will be his tone tonight? Will we see Frustrated Obama? Conciliatory Obama? Feisty Obama? Or Inspirational Obama?
No disrespect Feisty, but I've never known Obama to be Feisty.... or, are you really Obama in cognito? Just kidding! Only First Read knows for sure.... LOL.
Even NJ realizes how horrible the radical Conservative presidential candidates looked in last night's debate. If she didn't she wouldn't find it necessary to employ a classic Rovian political attack;
Tactic #3: Accuse Your Opponent of What He/She is Going to Accuse You Of
All Democrats and Liberals in particular were accused of treason for YEARS during the Bush presidency just for stating opposition to any of the President's policies. The ship sailed on politicizing 9/11, sailed into port with a "Mission Accomplished" banner affixed, in fact.
Now, back to the real issues...Republican presidential candidates who promise to destroy the social safety net and all consumer protections. The war on the American middle class continues. Buzz Republicanyear might use the slogan "To the 19th Century...AND BEYOND!!"
AP - consider it tit for tat. The liberals on this board were dissing the debates for days before it happened. Joanna has every right to consider any and all of Obama's speeches the worst one ever. I kinda agree with her... since I can't sit through more than 2 minutes of listening to him yak away and saying nothing. I have to stop myself from cussing at the TV or radio whenever he starts his jaws moving. He crosses his statements from speech to speech... and that usually happens within the first minute of mantibular motion.
Right Jody? lol
What a novel concept!
Notice how none of the right wing nuts want to comment about last nights fiasco?
Nah - much easier to bash a speech they haven't heard yet!
"I wonder if there is anything so low that an Obama worshipper would not stoop to, in order to prop their idol."
You ain't seen nothing yet.
There's a big difference between the 2008 "Hope And Change" Obama/Biden campaign, and the sort of campaign that will be necessary to reelect President Obama given his overall job performance and particularly, his job performance on the economy and jobs.
Can you imagine how negative that campaign will have to be?
Axelrod and Plouffe can.
They're cynical old pros...wide-eyed idealism, or scorched earth.
It's all good this time around.
So do you think Obama will stress "Shovel ready jobs" tonight? Maybe he'll get into his "saved jobs" rhetoric again?
0 jobs created in April. Obama should draw a line in the sand and shoot the moon and predict an even dozen to be created in September.
Good job ignoring the trolls this morning Gang.
Tea people GOP republicans = murderers. Cheering when Perry bragged about killing people with the death penalty, even if some of them were innocent.
The thing I really loved best about the debate was Rick Perry invoking Galileo to make some obscure point about the science of climate change being unproven.
Huh??!
I think it turned out, Governor, that Galileo was right.
But never mind.
And then, of course, there was Perry taking credit for ozone reduction in Texas, as if this was some sort of actual problem that humans needed to address, rather than a God-created natural phenomenon.
Which is it, Governor Perry?
And am I mistaken, or did he indeed use the term Nitrous Oxide (when he probably meant Carbon Dioxide)?
Someone later reminded me that Nitrous Oxide is what dentists use.
So glad the governor cleaned up the problem of excess Nitrous Oxide in the atmosphere.
Maybe that's why so many Texans are out of touch with reality.
And THIS, folks, is the Republicans' best hope.
Don't make me laugh.
Turn off the Nitrous Oxide, will you?
I'm not surprised that Obama cult members are slow learners.
Your tactic failed, John. You are either using a badly plagiarized document from a professor at a fifth rate college- or one the treehouse club wrote itself, and posted on the Internet. I'm thinking the latter, since one of the purported authors is presented as the founder of a company that does not exist, and is, actually, an actress who performs in local plays thousands of miles off Broadway.
Sure hope the "professor" is also a figment of your imagination, or, at least, his position is- even fifth rate colleges terminate plagiarists.
The entire document is a rewrite of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals- and is barely disguised.that said. . .
I posted the only blog I plan on writing on 9/11 last year. Search my archives if you're interested- I haven't hidden them.
As I recall, it was one of your treehouse kids who inspired it- by stating that it was time to "move on" and let it go.
Bunk and hogwash.
Now, your vile membership seeks to exploit it to prop your failed president. I cannot even express the contempt that engenders.
You are your own worst enemies- for which I pity you. The destruction you so cheerfully laud that your idol has visited on my country, however, is another matter.
You, and he, will be repudiated at the ballot box soon- as you were last November. Then yup can drown your sorrows in imaginary drinks at your imaginary bar, and rewrite history to your hearts' content-
Where you will no longer be able to damage my country.
Obama shelved in 2012.
John B - it can well be said that liberals are continually using Alinsky tactics but you don't hear us making the same comparisons you use by the stupid Rovian list. Do you do that to back up your argument? Can't you come up with something original? I seriously doubt it. It seems you need a crutch... as you are lacking in critical thinking skills.
The reverse can be said about how the liberals demonized conservatives (and are still doing it today)... calling us warmongers and an assortment of other vile names. You must think we live in a bubble, not seeing how liberals treat conservatives. I'd have to say conservatives are much better at shaking it off and putting it in context as normal liberal reactions.
The thing most liberals don't understand about the social safety net is that they are not sustainable. Even if you do realize it, your adamant refusal to want to address the failures in how SS is set up and how Medicare costs way too much shows how you bury your head in the sand. When the programs become totally insolvent, will you listen then? You can cry boohoo all you want, but just remember it was the republicans that want to address the issue before the monumental failure of the programs. What will grandma do when the checks stop coming and the hospitals no longer recognize medicare as a means of payment. Big picture thinkers, you are not.
The "ignore" choice contributes well to calm thoughts and clear reasoning.
_______________________________________________
Yes, the blissful ignorance of unchallenged lefty liberalism, and the joys of the echo chamber and the mutual admiration club, basics of life on Planet Liberal. It's a happy, happy, place.
Didn't watch the debate did you? They specifically asked that. So you're here making comments on something you know nothing about?
Most of those 200 can barely be classified as humans...they are child-killers, murderers, rapists and monsters. You bleeding hearts want to protect their rights, make sure they have cable TV and education in prison, conjugal visits, arts and crafts supplies....Fortunately there are still a few states like Texas that actually punish the bastard rather than reward him.
All of our ills are directly attributable to our inability to demand, and get, independent subpoena empowered, security clearanced, and witness protected investigations into what has gone wrong, and how it was allowed to happen. We allow the foxes to guard the hen houses and then wonder why our hens which lay the golden eggs go missing.
It is time to demand justice be deliviered from our blind justice system.
LoL Then tell me, if you can, why I'm not ignoring you.
Maybe it's just that we all find our happiness in different ways.
Not all liberals are the same, your honor, as I keep having to remind you.
Thats your problem...... you couldnt find anything to say about 9/11. How about you say nothing and maybe DO something! How many of you FR liberal posters are emergency volunteers?(every state has a volunteer program, Im set up to restore communications in Michigan) How many of you have ever been in the military? How many of you do anything besides eat popcorn with way too much butter and spread your you know what across a large chair! You must have some training, some value to this country when the Shytbird flies over and drops a poop bomb. And dont tell me you volunteer and work for the save Mr. Obama campaign, that's self serving
MB....Obama worshipper...blah, blah.
Talking about worshippers, I thought the GOP audience was going to break out incense candles when they played that montage of Reagan. Was it a debate or a memorial?
I only saw half of it, but I thought it was about our current problems, primarily unemployment. Again, didn't see it all, but I didn't see them talk about job creating mechanisms other than lowering taxes. The only moments that stayed with me was the lack of applause when Huntsman said that the GOP shouldn't run from science. Only to be overshadowed by the thunderous applause when the moderator said Perry had executed 234 people and he lost not a wink of sleep that one might have been innocent.
The Gospel according to Santorum, don't feed the poor, take from the orphan, drug test the homeless.
Government according to Paul, save your silver coins, pay your own way and let big business self regulate. Believe us they will care for you more than their own profit margin.
I will be with the vast majority of American people tonight - not watching 1 Term 0bama's speech. The only people watching will be the 1 Term 0bama koolaid drinkers and the media that is forced to watch it for their job. 1 Term 0bama is going to announce more spending and then will tell us down the road how he intends to pay for it. The thing he doesn't realize is that this "Stimulus" bill won't pass. It probably wouldn't pass the Senate and you know it won't pass the House. Get used to the idea that the next POTUS is going to be Rich Perry or Mitt Romney. Any of them on stage last night would be better than 1 Term 0bama but it will be one of those two.
Gingerbread...what are you rambling about? What does your post have to do with the article? Just looking for something to blame Bush on today??
Texas loves to execute folks, whether they are guilty or innocent doesn't matter. The labs have been reprimanded for shoddy forensic work, just so the prosecutors can convict someone. 44 people have been exonerated in Texas due to DNA evidence, those are the ones who had not yet been executed. The question is, how many innocent folks were already put to death?
A room full of people who gave us Bush ... twice ... who have the nerve to bash Obama ...
nothing short of sickening ............
AM- first of all, the Galileo comment was used to highlight the fact that, in his day, the "science was settled".
Turns out, the consensus was wrong.
Second of all, while I do not expect that you read Nature- it is a peer reviewed scienctific journal- there was some groundbreaking research published therein recently. Here is what it said, in language more easily understood by non-scientists
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/
So, that big yellow gas giant in the sky has an impact on the earth's weather. Who knew?
It actually seems that Perry knows more science than you- nitrous oxide, and other cfc's, were blamed for the hole in the ozone layer. I guess it went over your head.
So, let's keep score-
The people predicting climate Armeggedon are, for the most part, computer modelers. Actual physicists have disproven their models, which is making them pretty unhappy.
Galileo was persecuted for daring to challenge what was "settled science". He was proved correct, while the "scientific community" was proven wrong.
Get the connection now?
Excellent summation Bb. Too bad the "open-minded" liberals will never read it though. They're in the process of ignoring anyone that may move their tiny brains off their socialistic ideas. The Libs are tied to the past as in "SS/Medicare worked before, why shouldn't they continue to work into the future?" The problem is the system is bankrupt and unless massive changes are made, those programs will fail.
Speaking the truth to Liberals is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You don't get anywhere, and you annoy the Liberal, ehh, pig.
JoAnnaSmith1
Governor Rick Perry calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and the media/Liberals (same thing) are all upset. A Ponzi scheme is defined as:
That's a fairly close definition of Social Security.
JoAnna you might be interested in what the turd blossom in Bush's head, Karl Rove, said...
Karl Rove Calls Rick Perry ‘Toxic’ On Social Security
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/karl-rove-calls-rick-perry-toxic-on-social-security.php
Sniff that article out and compare it with your asinine conclusion!!!
@ Fiesty, thanks GF. I'm up but I still don't trust the billionaire cable company.
Sorry if I struck a nerve, Mark...
Don't get me wrong...I don't envy Axelrod and Plouffe....especially in light of the enormity of the challenge that faces them in trying to get President Obama reelected.
It isn't easy to put the bloom back on a withered rose. It's sort of the political equivalent of getting Lazarus up and around again.
At least they'll have around $1 billion to employ in the effort.
I guess that alone makes it worth a try.
Before I forget...any compassion for the innocent victims of those executed in Texas?
Now the GOP are murders Mo? Thank you for the laugh. Just because you don’t believe in the death penalty doesn’t mean others have to agree with you. Well I guess that's your right, but you're a sad person to call someone a murderer if they don’t agree with you.
So according to Mo, I assuming that whoever doesn’t agree with him/her you’re either a:
Terrorist
Murderer
Un-American
Racist
Did I leave anything out Mo? And just let you in on a secret, many Independents believe in the death penalty.
LoL Then tell me, if you can, why I'm not ignoring you.
AM: You're going to get yourself banned from the treehouse for treasonous statements like that.
Not all liberals are the same, your honor, as I keep having to remind you.
AM: I know. Not all conservatives are the same, either.
My comments were only directed to the lefty liberals that use the Ignore feature to screen out anyone that doesn't totally agree with their positions (including those like the Nasty one that use the "double secret Ignore" where she tells you that you have been put on ignore, but doesn't really do it and pretends until you say something that she can't resist responding to. LOL!!!) .
The scariest part of last night WAS the applause and, actual debate interrupting cheers for the state sponsered killing of people. And a smirking Parry avoiding the question of whether innocent men have been put to death. Whether you are talking about Ruben Cantu, Cameron Willingham or others, the state of Texas makes sure that, once a conviction takes place, they will execute you, even (and especially if) there is evidence that it is a wrongful conviction.
Could someone please tell me why Wisconsin is not broadcasting the President's speech???
I think it has everything to do with the t-bagger Gov. Snot Walker.
Mixed Bag,
Look your Repukes TAX CUTS have failed the Nations for the last 30 years. At the same time BLEW UP
the debt as far as the black hole. Now that there's an African American Male in charge of saving the country from hostage taker who will blow up there own kids to make a point, you start showing how racist you are. Going back to the 19th Century will not cut it in the 21th Century so get use to going forward.
Those days are behind us, everyone must come to the table with solutions and not complaints because there man is not in charge. If you do not bring solutions you are part of the problem. So step aside and make way for the problem solvers. President Obama 2012
Bev,
Do you live in Wisconsin? Do you really think the Governor of ANY state has the power to control what's put on TV? Really?
Well then Joe, since I didn't hear it - you shouldn't have any problems telling us what the answer(s) were... right?
Cause I know I'm not the only one who would like to hear them!
We'll be waiting...
I dont get why ANYONE would ignore people, unless they dont want to hear any disagreement with anything they say! If that's the case why even be here, go into your bathroom look in the mirror and have at it!
Yeah, AM!
Bev and I want to know why the local NBC (lol) affiliates in Green Bay and Milwaukee are preempting President Obama in favor of the Packer's pregame show!
Well...
OK
Bev wants to know.
It involves prioritizing, right?
;-)
Bev - your use of Rove to describe Perry is inconsequential. Who cares what Rove says. You use Rove to your advantage anytime you can't come up with a valid argument.
How about sharing your ideas to fix SS and Medicare, or are you stuck in the past thinking the programs are in good shape? What about unsustainable don't you get? I'm very interested in hearing YOUR ideas on the subject... or are you just going to ignore it until there's zero money left to send out the checks or make the hospital payments?
Solutions fires back with the "Card", a little early, but well played. Solutions, use the "card" wisely because if you keep throwing it, it won't work and it makes you look desparate.
Hiya Kids, Hiya, hiya!
Well, I stand by all my predictions. I thought Perry was the overall winner, by a nose, but Romney was able to engage him and did very well in my opinion. Bachman is no longer irrelevant. I was surprised how weak her performance was. All rhetoric and no substance. Ron Paul proved once and for all that he is crazy. Absolutely bat-sh*t crazy. If there was a third place winner then that would be Huntsman, but he was a VERY distant third and I do not believe he can close the gap.
So, now it's a two horse race and I still predict that Romney will be the ultimate winner. Santorum, Cain, Gingrich, Bachman, Paul and Huntsman will fade into obscurity over the next 10 months. Oh, the Paul supporters will cling to him like a drowning man and Bachman will hang in there for as long as she can, hoping to regain her lost virginity and teasing her supporters with a third party bid, but she won't do it. In the end it will come down to Romney and Perry.
I do not understand where NBC gets the idea that Perry is the new "Reagan" and is going to stage a "Reagan-like Revolution". Perrys state, like mine, is riding the oil and gas bubble again. Their prosperity is all energy-based. Take that away and Texas is nothing but a whole 'nother third world country. No health care, no education, no upward mobility, no hope. They are drowning in debt and living on promises that are never going to be kept. All of that can be laid at Governor Perrys feet and hopefully will be in the coming months.
Perry IS the second coming, the second coming of GBII and even the GOP/TP/LDS will have to admit it and will be left with no one else but Mitt. His religion will seal his fate and the President will be re-elected in an historic landslide.
I say all that with a single caveat, the Tea Party. They Tea Party members have shown a disturbing tendency to adopt Admiral Farragut'ss strategy at the Battle of Mobile Bay, "Damn the Torpedoes, full speed ahead!" They are able to ignore the facts laid before them and march in lemming-like lockstep to their own doom despite all the evidence of the foolishness of their decisions. We owe the loss of our AAA rating to the new Tea Party Freshmen in Congress. It's theirs they own it. If they repeat those mistakes, Perry could be the nominee.
We're seeing the same thing here in Oklahoma. During the last legislative session the Freshman class of legislators, all Tea Party GOP, exhibited the attitude, "We don't want to hear facts, we want what we want and we are going to do all we can to get it." Which they proceeded to do and we're only now learning the depth of the trouble they have caused.
If the GOP/TP/LDS "want what they want" and are willing to ignore the past record of GBII and the record of Governor Perry, then they will nominate Governor Perry and heaven help us if he manages to defeat President Obama.
Within the first year of a Perry Presidency we will ALL find ourselves longing for the glory days of the GBII presidency. Perry will out-Bush, Bush and save GBII from the ignominity of being the worst President in US History.
But I don't think the GOP/TP/LDS can be that foolish. At least I hope not. And I KNOW the American people are not ready for a repeat of the last Bush Presidency. So, there is hope.
So....Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!
America Held Hostage, day 251
Obama/Biden 2012
There is only so much boredom the people in Wisconsin can take.
Plus the Packers are playing.
"The opnenness to strangers"??
Are you freakin serious?!! Americans are, and have been for decades, one of the most uptight, untrusting people on the face of the planet!
"Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, he couldn’t have known that the destruction he wrought that awful day, would balloon into a financial disaster too, aided by zealots and nincompoops who didn’t figure how to pay for the wars except put them on a credit card for future generations to pay, in addition, gave tax cuts to the rich to further dig the hole we fell into.
Seriously?!! Are you all that naive?! That is EXACTLY what bin Laden expected!! He said so right after the attacks! He said that is partly WHY he attacked the WTC towers! He knew exactly what would happen. The only reason none of you do is cause you DO NOT PAY ATTENTION!! And because you don't, this WILL happen again! YOU are part of the problem! Congratulations!
Baggers are going to be the downfall of the GOP candidate, if they get their man, Perry. When you see Huntsman say this, "We can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy. We've got to win voters," and it gets no applause, you know the GOP is in trouble of losing because of Bagheads. Huntsman is an unlikely candidate, but his point needs to be carried to have someone seriously considered to win an election. Romney would carry the point, Perry and Bachman won't. And they will lose against Obama.
Speaking of which, right now the Presidency is Obama's to lose. Compromise is being ignorantly considered to be bad, and you can't expect an ignorant public to respect negotiating, even if it is the adult conversation to be had. Look at all the typical, radical, biased posts on this thread alone. Don't expect the babies with suckers in their mouths from the left and the right to understand what mommy and daddy have to talk about. Talk to them in goo goo talk. That means Obama will have to address the stupid people in stupid talk, which will likely involve pounding his fist on the podium and looking like he won't compromise, even when he will because it is what is needed. Give the left radicals something to jump on the bed with while they wet their diapers. Give the right radicals something to go bawl and whine about, while they also wet their diapers. Then get the job done with Boehner, like a thinking person would, but while the kids scream at each other in the sandbox.
Obama's only fault will be to seem intelligent when the constituency is asking for stupidity. Fake being stupid while being smart. It is, frankly, what a lot of the thinking GOP is doing. Boehner is doing exactly that, in fact, and gaining from it. McCain does it all the time. And they are doing fine. Liberals buy the lines that Boehner is a radical and so do the nutjob baggers. Meanwhile, he is in great shape. Lesson to be learned.
the local NBC (lol) affiliates in Green Bay and Milwaukee are preempting President Obama in favor of the Packer's pregame show!
_________________________________________________________
The nerve of those Kochsuckers!!!!!!!
The thing that stood out during the debate was that several of the candidates agreed on what is an obvious cure for the economy; we have an enormous amount of untapped oil and mineral resources, and countries like China and India would get in line to purchase them from us. All we have to do is extract them and put them on the market.
Now having said that, I will go and brace myself for the attack I expect from the environmental whackos. Oh yeah, I also need to get ready to listen to some more lame crap from Obama about buying jobs with my tax money.
Wow, Solutions-539...
It's been awhile since anyone's called me a racist here at First Read...ahhh...those were the days, eh?
Anyway...what was racist about the comment you responded to?
Or any of today's comments starting with my first one at #1.10?
Although...I wouldn't be surprised if Axelrod and Plouffe do indeed exploit the race angle in the upcoming campaign.
Gotta use all the tools in the toolbox this time around!
So skip, are you assuming that all LDS are Republicans? Are we going down that road?
MB - Sorry if I struck a nerve, Mark...
I also apologize to you MB as I have now realized that you were only retyping No Jo's words.
No Jo, your constant branding of any liberal poster as idol worshippers and cult members is getting old. Just because people here have varying levels of support for Obama I don't think that would be tantamount to worship. Posters merely find common agreement with some of his promises and agree with his general policies. Others see a potential for him to with the help of the GOP actually work to begin to build back the country.
Mixed Bag, of course my thoughts and pra... (oops caught myself) go to the victims. Didn't want to anger the moderators insisting on extreme separation of church and state during any political discussions.
My point about the applause is that some of those attendees don't know about the number of cases where death row inmates have been set free years later. As lysnspug said some of these people on death row have been exonerated from DNA evidence. Those people that kill should be punished, but to be fair we need a system that is truly unbiased and blind to a indicted persons societal station. I see the news stories every couple of months about the latest newly released exonerated prisoner.
Although...I wouldn't be surprised if Axelrod and Plouffe do indeed exploit the race angle in the upcoming campaign.
Gotta use all the tools in the toolbox this time around!
________________________________________
Calling minorities "tools", you racist??
Sorry, I couldn't resist. LOL!!!
Why are all of the Repubs in here talking about the POTUS speech instead of the debacle that went on last night.
Typical
Mark, I'm sorry if you thought you were in the group I mentioned. Totally my fault for communicating badly.
The people I refer to as cult members and worshippers are those who cannot admit the truth when it is staring them in the face. Sorry if you thought I would include you in such a group.
By the way- don't count me in with the group that applauded the death penalty line. I oppose the death penAlty- always have, always will.
Before you get too excited, though, you should know that I have a consistent pro- life philosophy. I also oppose abortion.
It's purely a moral judgment on my part.
Solutions - Your man is in charge... and what has he done to destroy our economy lately? What has he done to improve the jobless situation? What has he done to promote industry and businesses... other than his union buddies at GM and GE? What has he actually done to come up with sound solutions to the nations problems?
If Obama was doing a good job, do you think conservatives would still be against him? If he was doing a good job putting the business of the United States on the front burner, I would support him...
Obama has been a monumental failure. Your type of liberal exhaults him while totally ignoring his inability to put America first. The problems are all around us but yet he only does something or says something to promote his position.
Now identify any of what I said to racism. That card is false and overplayed. How many white people voted for Obama in the last election. Cut the crap or stop calling black people the minority race. Get it?
It would appear that Ron Paul won another debate in spite of the fact that they would only dare ask him four questions. He is ahead of everyone else combined:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library
Mo,
Thats rich.. Liberal democrat people = idiots. It's kind of ironic that the debate was held in a state that couldn't even execute Charles Manson. And which ones were innocent? Specifics please.
Ah, how precious - Mo has upped the anti on a losing argument.
So to summarize [cause we all know this will get further additions as Obama's numbers plummet], Republicans are:
Racist neo-nazi murderers who hate teachers and kill puppys.
Yep, you libbies must be so proud of your arguments. After all, you all are so much smarter than us conservatives.
So super job Mo. In fact you should totally call your debate professor and tell him to check out your fantastic skills here on First Read.
I know he'd be as proud of you as we are.
Paul,
No, but the LDS Dems are not toutting a candidate in the Presidential race. The LDS GOP/TP have two candidates in the race. Romney and Huntsman.
Likewise, the LDS has been running ads for more than two years to help Romney and the Mormon religion become more acceptable to the American people, more mainstream and less like a cult.
Romney's campaign manager from 2008 blamed his failure to get the GOP nomination on his religion. Several recent polls show that the American people still think of the Church of Latter Day Saints as more like a cult like Scientology than like a main stream religion. The recent scandals involving the Texas Mormon Cult, Longing for Zion (?) has not helped in this regard. In hopes of bolstering their GOP/TP/LDS candidate the Mormon church has violated the constitutional separation of Church and State and been spending big money to support their candidate(s).
So, I include them as part of what I see as the political "Axis of Evil" that is destroying this country. The GOP/TP/LDS Axis of Evil. Obviously, this Axis of Evil does not include those LDS members who are dems or independents. But, sadly, as church members, their contributions to the LDS are being used to support the GOP/TP/LDS effort.
America Held Hostage, day 251
Obama/Biden 2012
Mark-
There is no perfect justice system. You make a good faith effort to do the best you can to ensure fairness, but at some point, those committing unspeakable crimes must receive punishment.
I live in California. We actually do sentence criminals to death for the most heinous of crimes, but execute very few.
I remember a number of years back, then-Governor Gray Davis (a Democrat not known for issuing stays of execution), was asked to halt the execution of a man convicted of murdering a grandmother in her 80's in a burglary gone bad. He beat her to death...in fact, Mark, he beat this old woman so severely that he actually broke her dentures. Just imagine...
Anyway...
This man's appeal to Governor Davis stressed that the condemned was a Vietnam veteran who suffered from the effects of his experience in the war. Thing was, Gray Davis had also served in Vietnam.
To his credit, Davis declined to halt the execution.
Where the death penalty is concerned, I wish California were a lot more like Texas.
The decisions of courts, judges, and juries are routinely ignored here.
Most of the victims of the most hideous crimes never get justice here, Mark.
And some people have the right to vote!?!....Is this post for real?
lol....PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN!!
Lean Forward!
Last week, it was speculated that Obama's newest plan would cost $100 billion.
Yesterday, it was $300billion.
Today, it's $400 billion
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/07/eveningnews/main20103022.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
What the heck- it's only money, right?
Hey Joe (lots of #'s) where did ya go?
I waiting for the answer(s)...
It shouldn't be to difficult - it only supposedly happened last night...
*jeopardy music playing*
NJ - I oppose the death penalty- always have, always will. As do I
NJ - Before you get too excited, though, you should know that I have a consistent pro- life philosophy. I also oppose abortion.
As do I, but understand that the supreme court has decided that the right to privacy is protected for women. Even if more adoption efforts, family planning etc are utilized there were still be the need for that choice. Beyond that I happen to agree with the SCOTUS that women have and should have a choice. For that, some family members, church goers and friends pigeon hole me as a godless communist. Despite my conflicting feelings on this issue, I would never use it as a litmus test for voting one party over another.
As far as the worshipper meme. We have traded thoughts, opinions and posts back and forth. I didn't think you were calling me a cult member. I thought you were calling folks like Beverly, Chicago, FRH (insert any other liberal poster) etc. Remember they are only expressing their thoughts and beliefs and continued hopes. Their voices are no less important then any one elses.
Look, I think you bring a lot to the conversation and appreciate your take on economic and foreign policy discussions by contrasting GOP and liberal policies. Made me think a time or two. But you can do better with your posts. Keep pointing out your disagreements, but you would do better to follow what Huntsman said last night about growing the GOP base by presenting viable ideas in lieu of demonizing the other side.
Hey no joe - by the time the speech actually occurs, it will have been raised another $400 billion. Obama wants as much as he got the last time. He has re-election to consider and there's no time like the present to stake his claim to his buy-off money. I think he as a little problem to overcome this time though. He doesn't have a totally democratic congress to approve it. Remember last time, they handed him the money on a silver platter. I guess we'll have to wait until eternity to see the benefit of all that cash doled out to his friends.
JoAnnaSmith1
Speaking the truth to Liberals is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You don't get anywhere, and you annoy the Liberal, ehh, pig.
Joanna you increadable,
when the president compromised with the GOP you bitched, that he was weak
when the president stood up to the GOP you bitched, he was not compromising
when the new congress come to power you said a new day was here and the liberals will see who the GOP can create jobs, well now its my turn to bitch.
In april and august the gop controlled congress created NO jobs. NONE NADA!!!!!! Zilch
Now that the president has to do congresses job and present another jobs bill that only 1 GOP member will vote for and thats scott brown, for them because in truth creating jobs is something they just can't do.
waiting for the GOP to create Jobs is like waiting for hell the freeze over, it will never happen.
also Cantor is a a*s hole for wanting cuts to off set disaster relief, he really pissed off Christie with that one, while most of his state was under water.
GOP can't create jobs, can't trust them to clean up after a storm.
Jas1 - It is an outright lie that Social Security has collapsed. As a matter of fact....Social Security can pay full benefits for the next 38-39 years if nothing at all is done and after that 80% of benefits can be paid. So JAS1 all those 20 and 30 year olds that Perry talked about last night that he said would get nothing....well if nothing is done to tweek the Social Security system, those 20-30 years olds on average will get roughly 39,000 a year in benefits in today's dollars. So do you want to again tell us that the system has collapsed? Really? Hmm. Just like Perry you have no credibility.
LoL Indeed, it does, sir, and it's a darned good thing that I have split screen capability, or the President would be plum out of luck. Or is that plumb out of luck? Well, never mind.
You get the idea.
Brianb: You can cry boohoo all you want, but just remember it was the republicans that want to address the issue before the monumental failure of the programs. What will grandma do when the checks stop coming and the hospitals no longer recognize medicare as a means of payment. Big picture thinkers, you are not.
Medicare/Medicaid account for 60-65% of all hospital business. They have no choice but to accept the payment. You really should do a little research before you draw conclusions unless ofcourse your intent was to scare people reading this message board.
Oh My - is that Feisty calling NOJO out?
But Feisty always says she's got NOJO on "ignore."
Yet again it would appear that libbies have their own definitions for certain words.
Like success, and how the first stimulus was such a "success" we have to do it again.
Or how about "stimulus?"
So libbies - much of the cost of Obama's new stimulus is extension of existing tax cuts. How exactly does extending the status quo "stimulate?"
Obama has no experience and has surrounded himself with people who have even less. When your car breaks do you take it to your gardener? When you get surgery - do you seek out the most qualified and expierenced doctor?
Of course you do.
I have a correction to make.
One of our friends out here, who didn't want to embarrass me publicly, apparently, corrected me about the Nitrous Oxide nonsense in my earlier post.
And thank you, sir, for doing that. You know who you are.
Apparently, it IS true that there is Nitrous Oxide pollution in Texas, caused by the heavy use of nitrogen fertilizer by Texas farmers. The same pollution battle we're fighting in my own state, of course, and in many other agricultural states. I should have known.
So, Perry is right about that. But then, my only question becomes:
Which, by the way, according to our friend, is only exacerbated by the lack of rain in Texas.
So, in the end, I guess have two questions: That one up above, and one that is similar to what I have asked here before:
The Fourth Circuit just handed down two opinions ordering that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's challenge to the Affordable Care Act, along with another challenge to brought by Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, both must be dismissed entirely on jurisdictional grounds. Judge Davis dissented from the Liberty University opinion to say that he would reach the merits and uphold the law. Today's decisions are the first court of appeals decisions to dismiss a case for want of jurisdiction after a lower court reached the merits — potentially raising the possibility that one or more of the justices could agree with them and prevent this constitutional question from being decided on the merits until after 2014.
Ah, Laurie - if what you say about SS is true [and it is not] and it's rock solid and self sustaining, how come Obama couldn't guarantee payments just a month ago?
Don't you just hate it when Obama himself wrecks your arguments?
Please turn off THink Progress and just think for yourself. It's a ponzi. But for current payments no benefits would get paid.
You know that, stop fighting what you know just to support stupid talking points.
What???? A news reporter asking a republican a tough question? It will never happen.
When you watch news reporters interviewing a republican these days, you'll see more softball pitches than you would if you watched an elementary school PE class.
Umm, that would be "incredible" Jeff. And thanks.
Another one, because the first one failed. Here's a clue Jeff, and getting through to you is like teaching a pig to sing, just because you slap a "Jobs Bill" on the cover page of legislation doesn't make it so. Obama and his economic team predicted unemployment would be at 6% by now. What is it Jeff? How'd that "jobs bill" work out?
Source for Obama's claim of unemployment: http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/06/07/romer-bernstein-unemployment-chart-updated/
Then why did Obama say if the debt ceiling wasn't raised that "Social Security checks may not go out."? That sound like a healthy program to you laurie, having to spend deficit dollars to pay for SS? Or was the president lying to us?
Jeff - stop appealing to us conservatives. We put up with liberals for 6 years of Bush's presidency and now again for another 2 1/2 years of Obama's. Turn around is fair play. Obama sucks as a president and he's bringing this country down. Take the blinders off or tell me what good he's done to the economy and the jobless rate. Blaming Bush this far into the game is pointless. He's had plenty of time to steer the ship into another direction away from the falls.
Ahhh yes! Spanky dutifully trots out the old "Ponzi Scheme" phrase.
Don't you just love the Republican Rhetoric Generator Machine these days? One republican (usually Rush Limbaugh) uses a phrase and GOP folks around the country fall right in line faster than a litter of baby ducks.
Better yet - WHY would Governor Numbnuts slash funding for firefighters by 75% in the middle of a historic drought?
Mixed Bag - There is no perfect justice system. You make a good faith effort to do the best you can to ensure fairness, but at some point, those committing unspeakable crimes must receive punishment.
I guess today will be the day to tackle thorny social issues and not the economy, oh well.
Those that are proven guilty and have been afforded a fitting defense should be punished. I think that means locking them away with no chance of hurting anyone else. Ever. I do feel for the victims. However, in my view, what does it do if you kill them, it doesn't take away their crime, can't raise the dead etc. Do you see it as a good deterrent? The death penalty, it is just vengeance, no? By the way there are no right or wrong answers you can give me.
Sort of a change of topic but, you should watch "The Conspirator" Robert Redford's movie about an alleged conspirator in Pres. Lincoln's murder and the justice that ensued.
Starting now anyone making over 165K gets to enjoy their social security tax break the rest of the year. The rest of you suckers pay up.
Ed - try reading the entire post before you draw your conclusions. Here's some help. I'll paraphrase to make it simple for you: when the system goes insolvent because it is unsustainable and there's no money left to make the payments, the hospitals will not accept it as a form of payment any longer.
Do you get it now? I don't know how to make it any simpler. SS and Medicare are failing. Harry Reid, the moron said there's enough money to last 20-30 years... if that's the case, why did Obama say he wouldn't sign the checks going out if the debt ceiling wasn't passed, alluding to the fact that there is no money left in the system? Who's lying, Obama or Reid? One of them is. Take your pick. I say both of them are.
I know I have Fiesty on ignore - as well as Bev, Navy and I forget who else. I got tired of them spouting the same drivel every day and cutting and pasting liberal talking points. From what I can tell - I haven't missed anything and certainly wouldn't have learned anything from them. I could get called out by them everyday and never know it. (Nor would I care)
Wisconsin - deciding not to show the 1 Term 0bama speech. Well - isn't the job of the TV companies to make money and show what their viewers want to see?? There will be a lot of other stations not carry the speech as well - most of them in fly over country that always votes Republican. Putting 1 Term 0bama on TV in the traditionally Republican states is a way to make certain that your ratings come in last.
Brian - If there is no money then how would a hospital accept it as a form of payment in the first place you idiot.
jeff:
[when the president compromised with the GOP you bitched, that he was weak]
[when the president stood up to the GOP you bitched, he was not compromising]
Yes, and there you have it in a nutshell (it has been a bit slow over at FoxNation and The Blaze lately).
Hell, even Schpanky managed to get his pointless point in there...somewhere...somehow...but what we did find out is where Schpanky got his "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" bull@!$%# talking point...from Perry's lips to his...BWAAK!
...but then, again, Schpanky's ALWAYS striving for mediocrity...but it seems he's found someone new to bully. I'm surprised he hasn't brought up the CERN study...or how Al Gore "invented the internets"...or how cut, cap, and balance is "gooder-er"...or want to "internet fight" someone over the "tax code"...but it is early...we shall see how the day plays out.
...right "counselor"?
Anna Molly Good luck to the Packers tonite.
Bev They preempt the Presidents speech because the Packers game is more important to those Wisconsinites then the same o same o from our president.
I hear Nancy Pelosi is upset that the Republicans will not have a response (rebuttal) to the President's speech after it is over. Now why would she be upset? No talking points for her and the dems. She also has a memo out thast says do not use the words stimulus, shovel-ready instead use words like job creation, investment, made in America. The dems have finally figured out that the stimulus plan did not succeed like they had hoped.
The facts are as follows:
"The NBC affiliate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, WTMJ TV announced yesterday they will not be airing Obama’s jobs speech at 7 PM EST Thursday night. instead they are opting for their own pre-game coverage of the Packers Saints game scheduled to kick off at 8 PM. Green Bay’s NBC affiliate, NBC 26, will also go with the Packers pre-game show over Obama."
However, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and all over the United States will carry the Presidents speech
From the SSA website -
The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance(OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2036 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change is enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion.
In summary - SS will run out in 25 - 29 years, not 38-39 years. After that it will paid only 75%. That mean 40 year olds may not get the full benefits they are paying into now.
Damn I wish you people would have an original thought and start a new thread. So many things to say about so many posts of the 123 supposed responses to number 1 post. Get lost by the time I get to the bottom of the thread. Would like to post at the comment made NOT 123 later. Hey FR!!!! Why don't you give a "reply" tab to each and every comment so that "sub-comments" can be made to some of the ridiculousness going forward without having to suffer through so many of the mindless, repeated from last week, and redundant rantings? And the group whom I am addressing with that being said, knows who they are.
Just a suggestion. It would make it less straining to see how others respond to a questionable post.
Thanks and let us know when it is implemented.
First of all, thanks for the good wishes for tonight's game. I knew the local stations would opt for game coverage, especially given the alternatives available for almost all viewers both on network and cable channels. But I don't think that's unique to Wisconsin, and probably would have been the same most anyplace else, as well.
I do have to take issue with what you said above, however. I share Speaker Pelosi's concern about the delay in the Republican rebuttal. I mean, how long does it really take to figure out that you're going to say "NO"?
And what important television non-event will be interrupted next week, when John Boehner finally gets around to saying it?
I dread to think.
Grover,
Excellent analysis. May I add his OBVIOUS conflicting comment about "...always opting to save lives..." while later smirking that he had no problem with executions in the state. Yeah, he's a real life saver. The Innocence Project has compelling evidence that Texas has IN FACT executed innocent people.
But the good ole' boy rhetoric is that if they was arrested, they must be guilty of sumthin'. Shucks, anyone knows THAT!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PS. Anna Molly, perhaps that overflow of the Nitrous Oxide is what causes those a-rods to smirk uncontrollably during inopportune moments? Or maybe they are just heartless bastards?
You better be "shovel ready" and "laser focused" for tonights lecture and blame fest. It will get deep out there.....
Oh My!
FBI raiding Solyndra plant.
Looking for all them dead unicorns and expired fairy dust.
I always know green jobs to be a failure, but a scam against taxpayers.
Obama - slayer of all things green.
This is such bull@!$%#. You have "discovered" NOTHING about the true nature of the Tea Party people (there is no official "Tea Party"). They are NOT obstuctionists, they are NOT terrorists, they are NOT racists. Who they ARE is everyone you run into on the street. They are your mom and dad, they are your grandma and grandpa, their kids play with your kids, they are middle class American workers, they sit next to you in church, they cut your hair at the barber or wait on you at the grocery store. They are everyday Americans who only want to see their government act responsibly and spend within the limits of what they take in. The "TEA" in Tea Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. Taxing the rich only serves to tax the middle class because the rich will pass it on to us. It's TIME to realize we cannot save everyone, that we must make choices on who we can provide for as a nation and who we can't. The people who belong to Tea Parties across this nation are those that cannot afford to pay anymore, yet we know, without a doubt, that ANY spending plan will eventually be loaded onto the backs of the middle class. Congress MUST STOP SPENDING. It will not create jobs, it will not do anything other than get those jerks in congress re-elected by the useful idiots that believe the BS they tell them about the "other guy".
You guys just keep it up, lying about Tea Party people. It will backfire and make them all so angry at being called what they are not, that they will show up in record numbers and Democrats will be defeated in a historical level landslide. Remember 2010 election? It will be nothing compared to 2012! By lying like this about really decent, normal, hard working people, you are sealing the fate of most Democrats in anything other than extremely left districts. Keep up the good work. ;D
It was toward the end of the debate. Herman Cain was asked the question about GE and it's profits and paying zero in taxes. His response was to institute the 999 tax base and remove the loopholes that give some companies favored tax treatments. I would have liked the question to be asked of Romney and Perry because I'd like to hear the next president's view on it as well.
So Feisty....did you watch the debate?
I apologize for the delay. I'm not paid to monitor and comment on first read so when I get busy sometimes it takes me a little longer to respond.
Outstanding post Deb
Nancy Pelosi has her Depends tied in a knot. She's angry that the GOP has elected to not have a rebuttal to Obama's speech. Why should they, they already put out their plan for economic growth (House GOP budget passed on April 15th). Obama's speech is in fact a rebuttal to the GOPs plan. It's actually the second rebuttal by Obama, recall him calling Ryan over for a speech where he, Obama, said would come up with a plan soon. 5 months later, Obama now says he has a plan. That didn't take long.
And why give a response to the same old song and dance the Democrats have been preaching for 3 years now, spend, spend, spend. Plus, the GOP would just soon let Obama's plan be hung out to dry all by its lonesome, that way America yet again sees how incompetent the Democrats and Obama are.
Not even close to my original question... nice try dumbass!
Now run along and educate yourself on the definition of ADDITIONAL! lmao!
Most important things first: IF the local NBC affiliate truly believes that seeing a few has been and never was football players spout out a bunch of sports cliches about a team that will not be winning the superbowl again this year is more important than the President of the United States addressing a joint session of Congress to extoll them to improve the economy, then we know why Wisconsin voted for Scott "kill the unions" Walker in the last election. Pre-views of mindless violence surely takes precedence over improving the economic outlook for the country.
Second: Rick Perry is an in articulate thug. He came across last night as the under educated bully he is. He will need some real help to run away from "FED UP." He may have some good idears, but being able to articulate them is essential. You know where he stands and where the GOP is when the biggest applause he got for the night was based on killing people. That was sick, just sick.
John in Az - It's exhausting to have to keep explaining this. The trust fund will be exhausted but not the cash flow that comes in from FICA taxes. The cash flow from FICA taxes will not be able to pay 100% of benefits but the amount on averge will be still be around $38,000 a year for the average worker. That's in todays dollars. Also, there have been various estimates as to when the trust fund portion (or the amount over what taken in by FICA taxes to pay benefits) will be exhausted. Depending on figures used and estimates it could be as long as 38/39 years. Either way...SS is not on the verge of collapse and only minor tweeks are needed to bring it into balance and continue to pay benefits at 100%. My original post was intended to counter Perry's assertion that 25-30 year olds would not receive any SS benefits because the program had collapsed. That's just factually untrue.
Joe 755363- His response was to institute the 999 tax base and remove the loopholes that give some companies favored tax treatments. I would have liked the question to be asked of Romney and Perry because I'd like to hear the next president's view on it as well.
I didn't hear about the 999 tax so I googled it. 9% income tax, 9% business tax, 9% sales tax. A bit of the fair tax and sales tax idea. I'm not sure if removing all the deductions alone and breaks would sufficiently provide enough tax receipts to fund the government. I would have also liked to see real proposals introduced from Perry and Rommney in lieu of the talking points they said.
Feisty the dude answered your question. Why the dismissal and the slam? Part of the problem at FR.
Why did you progressives even watch last night if you cant even take your rose colored glasses off for a second and be slightly objective. Last night was the first debate in which I thought all the candidates besides Paul and Bachmann did a very good job of answering questions in a manner that could prove they could match up against Obama very well. If you actually tried to listen to their answers and ability to respond quickly and succinctly regardless of your political views, Huntsman did a very good job. Gingrich always does well in that forum but has no chance and even Santorum answered well because the questions really were limited to economic answers. All of them are going to look like absolute geniuses in comparison to Obama on these topics. I thought Romney did much better than Perry in terms of his answers and so did Cain. Perry isnt nearly as bad as a debater as you guys want to label him. He had some very good answers and some mediocre and doesnt come off as deep thinking as the some of the others but does come across as street smart man of the people and I dont know if thats just the Texas style. What is clear to me is that regardless of the left wing media trying to portray this group as weak GOP candidates, is that if this election is a referendum on the economy just like the 2010 mid terms, Romney/Perry/Hunstman will be formidable candidates and each will be able to tear Obama apart on his policies assuming we are no better off in a year as we are today. Just read todays WSJ and the articles on the first Stimulus and the grade report and the various negative economic records Obama has set during his short 3 year term (records he cant blame on Bush), those are huge obstacles for him to overcome and these 3 candidates will be able to more than hold their own in an economic debate. It is clear to me that Paul and Bachmann are borderline clueless.
Yellowdog
I absolutely agree. This was the main reason I watched, and I was extremely disappointed. Personally, I am tired of the blame, I want answers. All I heard was typical talking points, question dodging, hypocrisy, and no solutions. In a speech before the debate, Romney talked about the need for a "job creating machine"... so what is that? How will he create jobs? More talking points, no solutions.
The next question I wanted any of them to answer was this: Currently, the precedent has been set that the House will not compromise on any issue presented by the opposing party. So how will any of these GOP candidates get the House to compromise and pass any legislation, given this precedent?
Unfortunately, the GOP candidates I do like, who address the real problems, are ignored by Fox... the Republican mouthpiece. One of them was not even invited to the debate, and he is more honest than any of the candidates debating last night. The GOP has been taken over by extremists, and it is very scary.
DEB (numbers) -
Unfortunately, you are buying into a campaign of disinformation and myth. Sure, there are folk like you describe in your rant, but you have been manipulated and fooled.
Let's begin with the recent relevation of two authors who started checking Tea Party data because they wanted to know the role of religion in the movement. They were startled to find some surprising facts. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, by Robert D. Putnam and David E Campbell, includes the following profile of the Tea Party movement overall:
- The majority of participants are while males
- The majority of participants have been conservative Republican activists for many years
- The majority of participants are fundamentalist Christians
- The majority of participants "are hostile to immigrants and Blacks"
These findings explode the myth that somehow the Tea Party sprang up spontaneously from a collation of political newcomers. These findings expose the manipulation of voters who are genuine in their distress, and also exposes the hard-core bigotry and racism that underlies the slogans and positions of many Tea Party activists.
Now, let's turn to the latest news: The secret recordings made at a very, very hush-hush convention of conservative officeholders, sponsored by the Koch Brothers, in order to coordinate a repressive and regressive wave of state and federal legislation after the 2010 elections. Angain, such a meeting belies the very myth you stated, that there is no organized Tea Party. The fact of the convention and the coordinated activity alone overturns that myth.
But even worse, at the meeting, according to the recordings relesed early this week, the chief strategist for the Koch Brothers explained that the Tea Party movement was fostered deliberately, in a well-organized and -funded manner, to put as many candidates into office as could be found.
The Tea Party is simply another plot, by the Koch Brothers and such as Grover Norquist, to manipulate voters. These guys have done such things for decades, too.
You've been used and abused.
Laurie, what you dont seem to understand is that there is nothing in the Trust Fund as you call it today for Social Security except Treasury Bills. There is no real cash. Since all the so called contributions made were used to fund other government programs, you will need new revenue or borrowings in the future to fund future payouts. I suppose we could print more money to pay the debt that we owe ourselves. So John is correct in that if you look at social security purely from a cash flow perspective it is a ponzi scheme in that you have to collect from today's contributors to pay the benefits in the future. That isnt sustainable and it takes much more than minor tweaks to make it work. You really have to assume that its a pay as you go system.
Its like my current home state in which the democratic politicians have promised the various state government unions including the teachers union various retirement pension and medical benefits far in excess of current funding. They then passed state laws that force local governments to calculate the benefit accruals a certain way etc but in reality the state and local governments are going to run out of money in about 7 years where current contributions wont be enough to pay for the current years payouts. You cant tax enough to fix the problem so Illinois will be in dire financial crisis and probably need a federal bailout in less than 10 years if retired teachers, firemen, police officers, government bureucrats are going to get their promised benefits. We will bail them out I would bet because its not these employee's fault and the victims of this ponzi scheme will be very sympathetic but I do blame the democratic party in this state for putting us in this financial crisis. It a reminder of where the federal government is headed and where did Obama learn his financial politics--oh yeah Illinois.
Anna Molly The republicans elected not to rebut President Obama's speech, mainly because they are dumb enough to interfere with the opening game of the NFL season, and secondly they have already rebutted his speech since there is going to be nothing new from the last one. But the real reason is that they do want to find common ground and rebutting his speech would be seen by liberals as obstructionist, yet by waiting they will be seen as attempting to find common ground and the onus will be on Obama to put his plan in writing.
I feel like the way the media has handled this primary process is disgusting. The most vile excuse for journalism I've seen in a long, long time. The race has been called since Perry jumped into the race. And this is really leading the public by the nose to the two candidates the media thinks it can cover the most easily.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan at ALL. I actually hate the idea of Ron Paul as president. But he's polled consistently well, and he's been completely discounted by the media, and that will, without a shadow of a doubt influence the primary selection process. He'll be completely out of it, for the sole reason that he hasn't gotten fair, unbiased coverage, while Romney and Perry have been declared the victors months in advance. They don't even really need to ask for money, it's already a lock for them.
Ever since the media has become a business that's forced to fight for a demographic, rather than even a specific interest, and especially not for the idea of journalistic credibility, we've gotten worse and worse coverage, and the public has gotten stupider and stupider for it. Our national media is terribly flawed. It's become another gear of the economy, rather than a source of truth. Our whole system is corrupt, and until we get a new SCOTUS who understands that free market capitalism means not giving special status to corporations and not forcing them to maximize profits at the expense of serving their purpose, the whole country is in serious trouble.
John A, what Robert Ludlum conspiracy novel have you been ghost writing for? Do you know how many political meetings took place in 2008 between the Pritzker family and various other wealthy billionaire backers of Obama? If you took secret recordings do you think they might talk strategy? Give it a rest. As for the Tea Party, you are being fed the same BS that you accuse Deb of. Lets discuss what came out of the Iraq anti war trials that took place over the last 4-5 years by various trial lawyer advocates. Did you discover that there was a group of people dedicated to make money over the anti war debates and intentionally created riots and arrests so they could then sue the local governments? They won elsewhere but lost here in Chicago where much of this came out in discovery and depositions. That said, the actual people who were participating in the anti war rallys were real people who passionately believed what they were protesting about. The Tea Party is similar. Your myths have been debunked so many times and the reason that these people drive you progressive nuts is that grass roots protests used to be the province of the radical left like yourself and you lost it to a group of people who hit a very strong chord on fiscal rationality. The fact that a grass roots effort arose to stop the radical left progressive economic change to this country is bringing out the Alinsky playbook in a manner never seen before.
Brian: First of all, Social Security wouldn't be "broken" if ex-President Johnson hadn't decided to change it into a General Fund deposit and every senator, etc., borrowed from it to pay for their "pork" projects and failed to pay it back. If it were changed BACK to a locked fund, the IOU's paid back, and NO funds would be allowed to be "borrowed" from it....the Social Security Fund would be in good shape for many, many years. I know there are baby boomers drawing from it now, and everyone blames us for using it up; however, despite SOME baby boomers living longer than expected....there are also quite a few that die younger. It all equals out in the end!
JollyOldSoul: In one of your earlier posts, you said that people didn't do anything...well, I not only served 23 years on the military, I am also quite active in my community as a volunteer. I am also the captain of my Neighborhood Block group and meet with my neighbors regularly to discuss such things as earthquake preparedness, disaster preparedness, etc. Not EVERYONE sits around and does nothing for our country...many of us DO get off our duffs and do things and to try to paint everyone in the same box is ridiculous!
Lastly, when they debated last night and talked about illegal immigration...I had to laugh. Their solution was to build a fence....building it longer, build it higher. Unfortunately, they haven't read about the tunnels that are being dug UNDER our borders between both Texas and Mexico and between California and Mexico. Are they also going to build an underground defense? I don't seriously know of any way to stop illegal immigration other than companies being told to use E-verify on ALL employees, people stopping using gardeners, house cleaners, etc., and coming up with a form of "temporary" work visas so they can come to the U.S. and work; then go home. Until we figure out a way to monitor those coming across our borders, we're NEVER going to be able to do anything about illegals coming across the borders into our states, cities, etc.
Additionally, being a Democrat, I was very interested in the debate last night (as well as the speech tonight), but I keep an open mind as we all should. I'm anxious to hear what our President has to say and can only hope that he takes a forceful stance. The only problem is that he will be blockaded by our current "Party of No" only because they are afraid that if he comes up with an HONEST idea of how to create jobs, they will look worse than they already do. However, that may backfire on them. They promised when they were politiking in 2010 that they would come aboard and create jobs, but we've seen NOTHING from them since then....and they STILL haven't come up with anything concrete. I have to wonder if many of these big corporations aren't hiring ONLY to make President Obama look bad. I bet if a Republican is elected President (heaven forbid based on the current choices), they will start hiring like crazy!! Anyone want to bet on that one? Makes you think, doesn't it, about how the big corporations are pulling the strings in Washington!!
Gingerbread Mama: Good post but were does that leave us regarding this upcoming election?
The only candidate willing to TRULY turn back the clock and restore America is Dr. Ron Paul. He will bring our troops home, he will protect our privacy rights and use the outline the founding fathers gave us to stop us on our path to socialism.
Bottom line is we can't afford these wars. We have to look at the important issues here people!
Newly Independent & Kirk,
The reason I watched is because one of these candidates has a good chance of being the president. I want to know what to expect. If they win, will they show any signs of working with the Democrats if the GOP do not get a filibuster number in Senate? Due to the toxic nature of compromising in DC the only way to do anything is if a party has the Pres and both houses including 60 votes in the Senate. It shouldn't be that way. We have serious problems that involve both reforming government programs and reforming taxation. By 2012, I think that we will be halfway into a lost decade. I just can't see that with the strength of the economy we can just cut spending to get ourselves out of the economic doldrums.
Perry fumbled about every questioned asked about why Texas was low in education and income disparities. I didn't like the answer, but his strongest sound bite was his strong statement on capital punishment. Romney actually had a few good sound bites about saving social security. Was it just to contrast Perry's Ponzi barb or does he really mean he doesn't want it to go away?
On an overall note, I don't see why every candidate believes that all our problems would vanish if HCR was repealed. What do they have to replace it? At some point, they have to say I hate this policy, instead I would enact this.
You are right though Kirk, frankly I would not vote for any of them. However, I wouldn't mind if Obama welcomes Huntsman back to the administration.
Kirk - How old are you? In case you're very young let me tell you that Social Security has always been a
"pay as you go" system. Current workers pay for retirees and when you as a current worker retire, those younger workers pay for you. It just so happened that for many decades SS took in more than it paid out in benefits. So Congress in it's greedy desire started raiding the trust fund and using the surplus. Well the chickens have come home to roost but that doesn't mean the SS system didn't and doesn't work. Moving forward Congress should not be allowed to raid the funds of SS beneficiaries and yes it will only take minor fixes to secure the system. Those fixes can be a combination of slowly increasing the retirement age as Reagan did in the 1980s and lift the income cap on salaries. Those two fixes would probably be enough to secure SS for at least another 100 years.
Didi, you obviously didnt listen last night with a real open mind as they answered your questions if you had listened. If you want a real lock box for social security then you should have gotten behind Bush's plan to privatize it because thats exactly what he proposed. You would have your own money and contributions and it would be safe because it would be invested in T-Bills or savings accounts etc. So why didnt you support his plan? Democrats didnt like it because then it would have been disclosed that social security for seniors is really part welfare and is being given to the most affluent members in the aggregate in our society. Seniors control 80% of the countries wealth and will receive 3 dollars in benefits for every dollar contributed. Thats why private accounts werent supported.
As for illegal immigration did you not listen? Romney said exactly what you stated in that the demand side of the equation needed to be addressed and he said "technological" fence in other words a combination of people, drones, fence and radar. Only one person said literal fence. As for the party of No, are you talking about the democrats and Obama? Give me an example of their willingness to compromise. Are you referring to real spending cuts in entitlements? Tort reform? Business incentives for permanent job growth? cap and trade? Education reform? Why is it the republicans to blame if they dont agree with Obama's policies? Is it possible that after 3 years, his policies arent working so a different direction is needed so compromise is not the right solution?
Laurie I am in my 50s, I completely get social security and understand how it works. It worked in the past because 10 employees were paying for 1 retiree and people lived to 70 years old. Now its only 3 people per retiree and people live to 80 and beyond. Current benefits are 3 dollars for everyone 1 contributed and get worse as the baby boomers retire. In addition, we are making a huge wealth transfer from our working young and handing it over the wealthiest segment in our society. Seniors control 80% of the wealth in this country in the aggregate. Its not that it has always been a pay as you go because that was never a concern when contributions exceed current payouts. This year due to the payroll cuts by Obama, we have for the first time contributions that are less than payouts. You cant just lift the cap on salaries without paying greater benefits for the contributions can you unless we want to admit that its also a welfare payment. If its truly a contributory pension plan, then your contributions should have some impact on your benefits. So lift the cap but pay more in benefits too. If not, then lets just admit that its welfare and start means testing benefits. But there is no way that slight tweaks will make it last another 100 years.
Yellowdog Mark, I think your objective review from a more left perspective was pretty accurate. Given my druthers I would vote for Romney/Hunstman because they are more socially moderate while being fiscally conservative. I think Romney's point on Obama being over his head is right on the mark and that Hillary would have made a far better democratic president. I think a less polarizing president than Obama can work with congress that has a filibuster sensitive majority no different than Clinton adopting Gingrich's Contract for America and reduced taxes dramatically in second term and Bush being a huge fiscal spender with both the republican and democratic congress. The vast majority of us are not idealogues like Fiesty type posters and would be very happy with Obama as president with a strong economy or Perry as President with a strong economy. If his policies actually worked, I would be extremely happy and most of us arent wishing Obama's failure just because we have personal opinions that they wont. I do think that the radicals like John A, Fiesty, Navy and others would never be happy if someone with fiscal conservative views was actually successful
Kirk - I don't believe arguing with you will get me anywhere because as I can see you are ideologically predisposed to dislike the SS system. As for wealthy seniors....my parents both in their 80s live on SS and a very small savings. Their total income is $38,000. Do you want to tell me that's wealthy? As for those wealthy seniors....well they paid into SS as well as everyone else and are therefore entitled to their benefits. I can say with a great amount of surety that the majority of seniors on SS are not wealthy. Yes you can raise the cap and increase benefits and also adjust the COLA adjustments as well. All in all benefits could grow more slowly over time and keep the system solvent. Your "it just can't be done" attitude is more a general dislike of the program than a fact that the program is insolvent which it is not. For you information do you know where the vast majority of old people lived if they were poor with no means of support......"Poor Houses". Social Security stopped that and has lifted a majority of seniors out of poverty over the decades. Stop demonizing the most successful government program ever.
If the President and Harry are really stymied by 50 or so members in a congress of 535, it speaks to the incompetence of the President and Harry. The #1 politician in the world cannot negotiate with some first term representatives?
And please spare me the "they aren't reasonable, they are evil, blah blah", this is POLITICS. Nothing new. A smart politician negotiates, like Bill Clinton. This is why he was so successful, and why Obama is an abject failure.
You can tell how desperate liberals are by the length of their posts. Feisty bev and others are really cackling now, so you know they are seriously worried about their failed experiment.
Maybe there is still time for Hillary to run.
Laurie, I am not demonizing it all and have no problem with continuing social security but I am not going to bury my head in the sand over the fiscal facts. Of course there are millions of seniors who live on social security as their primary source of income but thats not in the aggregate. Where do you think wealth accumulates? As you get older and save for retirement and the current baby boomer seniors are even more wealthy. It has nothing to do with people paying into and being entitled to their benefits, its facing the economic facts associated with that because of expanded life spans, seniors will receive much more than they contributed. I was for privatization of social security so we would ensure that the money would be there upon retirement and I am also ok with means testing or taxing benefits based on total income realized as a senior as a way to make it more of a social safety net for our seniors. There seems to be this stigma with calling it welfare so call it government assistance but thats what it really should be for seniors who have contributed and need it. I dont know if its the most successful program ever and I dont even understand why anyone would want to brag about that today. Wouldnt you prefer individually to be able to control your own retirement destiny and not have forced tax withholding for this promise to pay you in the future but only if you live and only based on what we think is fair etc? I would prefer to keep my own money and save for myself and if we need a government assistance for seniors that need it, we should just make that part of the social safety net.
Skip,
Not sure if you will see this or not, but I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. I married into the LDS and even though I don't agree with their believes they don't babble in politics. Everyone one on my wife's side are Democrats.
The moderators never ask enough hard-hitting questions, in particular follow-up questions. As noted, Perry needs to explain how he used stimulus $ to temporarily balance the books, etc. The other one in the highlights was Bachmann ranting about "Obamacare killing jobs," which is as stupid as her $2 gas crap. Ask her to explain just how a program that doesn't go into full effect until 2014 is killing jobs, or even how she believes it might in 2014, and not just spewing a sound bite.
From the highlights I saw nothing that showed Perry doing even remotely well, and I hear he got physical with Ron Paul during the commercial break. Like thin-skinned Palin, or angry-old man McCain, Perry does not have the correct disposition for being POTUS and leader of the free world.
John A. -- Thank you for responding to Deb (numbers). That post made me throw up a little in my mouth, like Christine O'Donnell's "I'm not a witch, I'm just like you" (my arse). And I'm with Talk to the Hand. There should be a reply to individual posts rather than scrolling through multiple posts by Kirk--Kirk give it rest.
Kirk: I'm sorry, but I don't want my Social Security privatized!! I'm not going to hand over my money to Wall Street or the Banksters!! I'm perfectly happy with it staying status quo, but making it so that greedy goverment individuals can't "borrow" from it and then just conveniently forget to pay it back!! It used to be in a separate fund before Johnson changed it.....since then, it's basically become the administration's "slush fund" and to hell with the seniors that pay into it! Until they are stopped from using it as such, it WILL disappear in time. Maybe not in MY time (and I'm 65 and planning to retire when I'm 70 or 75), but it will run out of money unless the IOU's are paid in full!!!
Paul,
Thank you for the civil response, I hope you see mine. I don't think you understand my response. Of course there are Democrats and Independents in the LDS church and they are good people. I know and have known many Mormons and they were good, hard working, salt of the earth people.
But the LDS church leadership has embarked on a very dangerous and I believe illegal campaign to help Mitt Romney (and by default Huntsman) get the Republican Nomination and win the 2012 Presidential election.
For more than two years the LDS church has been running a very slick and professionally produced ad campaign "I'm a Mormon". On the face of it, it appears to be informational in an attempt to make the LDS church more mainstream and acceptable to the American people. But the reality of the campaign is to help Mitt Romney be more acceptable to the GOP AND the American people.
His campaign manager after the 2008 election said that Romney failed to get the GOP nomination because he was a Mormon.
THE LDS appears to have made the decision to make their religion more mainstream. Why? After nearly 200 years and a state they virtually control do they need to be more acceptable unless it's to help their favorite son become President. Their involvement in this effort means that the donations of Mormon Democrats and Mormon Independents are being used illegally by the church to foster the candidacy of a GOP candidate.
That is a violation of the separation of church and state and therefore gains them membership in my political Axis of Evil.
Of course they have plausible deniability which is why the Feds don't act against them (I suppose). They can claim their ads are merely "informational" and not intended to affect the Presidential election in any way. Unless the FBI were to descend on them with a search warrant and seize their records they would never be able to prove otherwise and nobody wants to authorize that kind of action without more to go on.
But thanks for the discussion. Have great day and my best to you and yours.
Didi, not sure what greedy wall street bankers have to do with privatizing social security. They are two separate things and although the original concept of Bush's privatization contemplated self managed funds, that was scraped. It is a very simple concept to put your money into a 401k type vehicle in which the only investment it can make is safe simple Treasury bills or bank Certificate of Deposits etc without having any investment in the hands of the people you consider greedy. What is wrong with that concept?
TP, Obamacare has been a job killer already. Its not true that it doesnt kick in until 2014, thats just when the individual mandate and various other taxes, fines etc kick in. In the meantime, the provisions that require insurance to cover dependents until age 26, the elimination of maximum payouts, and the recent mandate that insurance cover woman's contraceptives, wellness care and a variety of screenings dramatically increases the cost of insurance and for employers who generally pay around 75% of the health care costs of their employees and the employees pick up 25% in the form of co pays, insurance premiums and deductibles, companies now pick up 75% of these additional costs. There are many additional corporate burdens in the bill that was never read but your mind is already made up
The price we paid for the war on terror
By Anne Applebaum, Published: September 2
On Sept. 11, 2001, the post-Cold War era that had begun so euphorically on Nov. 9, 1989, came to an abrupt end. The “long decade” that stretched from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the fall of the World Trade Center was marked by military spending cuts, domestic political scandals and a general sense that American foreign policy was adrift. President George H.W. Bush spoke of the “New World Order” but had no policy to fit the clever phrase. President Bill Clinton had a clutch of policies, but he never found a neat way to describe them.
The events of Sept. 11 reverberated through American life, but nowhere more profoundly than in U.S. policy toward the outside world. Creaking and groaning, the supertanker that is the American foreign and defense establishment turned itself around as Americans prepared to face new enemies. We created a vast security bureaucracy, encompassing some 1,200 government organizations, 1,900 private companies and 854,000 people with security clearances, according to a Washington Post investigation last year. We launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We organized counterterrorism operations in such far-flung places as the Philippines and Yemen, and we changed the culture of our military. We sharpened our focus on al-Qaeda and imitators. We spent, according to one estimate, some $3 trillion.
And we were, in the terms defined by the war on terror, successful: Ten years after 9/11, al-Qaeda is in profound disarray. Osama bin Laden is dead. Fanatical Islam is on the decline. Our military remains the most sophisticated in the world. And yet, 10 years after 9/11, it’s clear that the “war on terror” was far too narrow a prism through which to see the planet. And the price we paid to fight it was far too high.
In our single-minded focus on Islamic fanaticism, we missed China’s transformation from a commercial power into an ambitious political power. We failed to appreciate the significance of economic growth in China’s neighborhood. When President George W. Bush traveled to Asia in late 2001, he spoke to his Malaysian and Indonesian interlocutors about their resident terrorist cells. His Chinese colleagues, meanwhile, talked business and trade.
We also missed, at least initially, the transformation of Russia from a weak and struggling partner into a sometimes hostile opponent. Through the lens of the war on terror, Vladimir Putin looked like an ally. As Russia’s president, he, too, was fighting terrorists. Though his battles in Chechnya were a different war against quite different terrorists (and not only against terrorists), for a brief period he convinced his American counterparts that his struggle and their struggle were more or less the same.
Thanks to the war on terror, we missed what might have been a historic deal on immigration with Mexico. Because Latin America was irrelevant to the war on terror, we lost interest in, and influence on, that region. The same goes for Africa, except for those countries that have al-Qaeda cells. In the Arab world, we aligned ourselves with authoritarian regimes we believed would help us fight Islamic terrorism, despite the fact that their authoritarianism was an inspiration to fanatical Islamists. If we are viewed with suspicion in Egypt and Tunisia, that is part of the reason.
Finally, we stopped investing in our infrastructure — think what $3 trillion could do for roads, research, education or even private investment, if part of that sum had simply been left in taxpayers’ pockets — and we missed the chance to rethink our national energy policy. After Sept. 11, the president could have declared an emergency and explained to the nation that wars would have to be fought and paid for — perhaps, appropriately, through a gasoline tax. He would have had enormous support. In 2001, I could fill my gas tank for about $20. At the time, I’d have been happy to make it $21 if it helped the Marines in Afghanistan. Instead, the president cut taxes and increased defense spending. We are only now paying the price
Plenty of other mistakes have been made, abroad and at home, since Sept. 11. Plenty of people will use this anniversary to re-argue Iraq, Guantanamo or wasteful homeland security spending. But our worst mistake was one of omission. In making Islamic terrorism our central priority — at times our only priority — we ignored the economic, environmental and political concerns of the rest of the globe. Worse, we pushed aside our economic, environmental and political problems until they became too great to be ignored.
Let me repeat: The U-turn that American foreign policy made after Sept. 11 was not a failure. But under President Bush, we narrowed our horizons, stopped thinking in broader strategic terms and paid little attention to future competitors and domestic weaknesses. President Obama, dealt a bad hand to start, hasn’t had the energy, resources or willpower to do much better. Ten years on, could it be that the planes that hit New York and Washington did less damage to the nation than the cascade of bad decisions that followed?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-price-we-paid-for-the-war-on-terror/2011/08/30/gIQA3dtexJ_print.html
__________________________________________________________
We should never forget the events of Sept. 9, 2001
We should also never forget the mistakes that we made both intentionally and unintentionally.
The outright lies, manipulation and innuendo dishonor the memory of all who lost their lives that day.
Never before in our history has so few done so much to so many and not been held accountable for it.
We're on the same page IR......nice job. The price will be paid for generations, no matter what is rebuilt, human minds take a lot longer to refocus or change. Peace my friend.
IR, thanks for posting this information and for the pearls of wisdom of your own thoughts. It is important.
To you too GBM. You said it better than I ever could.
And another excellent post IR!
Keep those pearls of wisdom comin Floyd! ;o)
Independent Redneck Va, An absolutely wonderful post. I couldn't believe no one last night
The outright lies, manipulation and innuendo dishonor the memory of all who lost their lives that day.
The GOP embraced Bush's lying had he not lied there
The GOP embraced Bush's lying had he (Bush) not lied about WMDS and there wouldn't have been a 9-11. Bush went from WMDS to Democracy. What a crock! He's a liar.
Had Bush not let Bid laden go in Tora Bora there wouldn't have been the lives of our Armed Forces taken and maimed or a hugh war budget.
I don't like Perry at all, but this comment: “Just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said, here is the fact -- Galileo got outvoted for a spell,” was saying that Galileo was correct, but the majority of the scientific community at the time thought he was crazy. Similar to how anyone that doubts man-made global warming (instead of warming due to natural causes) is declared a nutter today.
Ahhh Bev... Accuse all you like, using conspiracy theories as your back-up. Concerning your first point, go into the archives of Bush's speeches and find the one addressed to the UN on Sept 12, 2002. That speech clearly outlines the reasons for going into Iraq. That was the original intent, the original plan and the call to action. Now since I know you won't do it, because you never accept truth as sound reason, WMD's were 5th on the list of all the reasons for going to war.
Had Clinton not let Bin Laden go when he had him in his sights, 911 might not have ever happened.
Same page GM, but IR cited his story, you just stoled what you didn't write.
Brianb: thanks for the reference... I looked it up. The real reason for going after Saddam Hussein was not WMD's, supposed Al-queda or other terrorists, or even that Saddam Hussein was torturing and killing his own people. No, the real reason was that Saddam Hussein threatened to kill George W. Bush's daddy. Like any monarch, he considered that a personal affront and used the military like his playthings.
I don't recall Parry or Romney being asked if they thought the US method of going into Libya was OK. Other than Bachman and Ron Paul (who would have become even more isolationist rather than fight Germany in WWII) no one really thinks the US did poorly in Libya.
Brianb,
That doesn't count!! Remember you can't blame Clinton?
That was the real reason dirp? Post the sourse please?
Dirp - Using that same old liberal mantra again I see. Maybe you should actually read the speech. Prove that you did... what were reasons 1-4? In order and be specific.
Your use of Bush going into Iraq because Saddam threatened his father is about as childish as they get. Maybe you should actually spend time learning things instead of mimmicing other worn out, used up and usless liberal lines.
Heap big fun reading the posts from the right this morning.
They all remind me of Mr Perry himself: All hat, no cattle (but plenty of mouth). Especially guys like Joanna Smiff.
Is this the Dash bash of the day? Sort of a meaningless observation... since most of what the right says goes way over your head... sorry we can't dip as low as you'd like Dash... the trees... they get in the way of the wings.
Regarding the Presidents jobs speech, from CBS:
Quite the negotiation style this man has. My way, or the highway. What a tough fella Obama has become, making all his demands.
Turns out Obama's speech is going to be a political one, not an economic one. Who saw that coming?
Here, lets do this Obama. You send that legislation of yours to the Senate, the Democratic lead Senate, and have them go on record with this next spending boondoggle of yours. Let's see the Senate pass this bill and defend that vote in the next election. That will be quite a sight to see
I can hear him now:
Let me make this perfectly clear - I am asking congress to approve $800 billion for my new jobs program. This will be completely different than the last stimulus I asked for and received. This time I will ensure it goes to jobs because I've done my research. There are unemployed people.
If Congress doesn't approve my request, it's all the republicans fault. They don't want to see this country go back to work. The only jobs proposal they made is sitting on Harry Reids table and since it's all republican ideas, it's not even worth the time to read it. Ummmm, ahhhh, yessir it's all the republicans fault. I am appealing to all my subjects to encourage your congressmen and senators to approve this jobs creation bill. Don't listen to anybody tell you that the last stimulus was a failure. It was all the republicans fault that shovel ready jobs were not available. Blah, bla, blah, blah blahhh.
Come on now Drive By, get it straight [i.e. "the winning argument"]
We are big hat wearing, not cattle having neo-nazi racists that hate teachers and strangle puppies, cause we are super dumb.
This point might have some appeal if Galileo hadn't actually been on the side of science, rather than the other way around. Even though his was the minority view, it was the view based on actual science, which is why he's considered the father of modern science.
There certainly was not much science in the majority claim that the earth is the center of the universe.
Here, on the other hand, you have in the minority the mystics, masquerading as scientists, but in reality perpetuating the religious construct of creationism, versus the majority who favor the constructs of science.
So the analogy is completely false.
The facts are as follows:
"The NBC affiliate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, WTMJ TV announced yesterday they will not be airing Obama’s jobs speech at 7 PM EST Thursday night. instead they are opting for their own pre-game coverage of the Packers Saints game scheduled to kick off at 8 PM. Green Bay’s NBC affiliate, NBC 26, will also go with the Packers pre-game show over Obama."
However, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and all over the United States will carry the Presidents speech
Paul Florida
Sorry to disappoint you, but they are my own reflections on the aftermath of 9/11, you do understand what is a reflection, here for your edification:re·flec·tion
[ri-flek-shuhn] noun
1.
the act of reflecting or the state of being reflected.
2.
an image; representation; counterpart.
3.
a fixing of the thoughts on something; careful consideration.
4.
a thought occurring in consideration or meditation.
5.
an unfavorable remark or observation.
Hope this helps.
Just for you Paul and BrianB, sorry to copy and paste, but you did ask for proof that President George W. Bush acted the way I said:
Just so you could find it, I highlighted the words for you. After being in Iraq for almost 10 years, the US military has found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, no yellow cake uranium, no Al-queda fighters escaped from Afghanistan. Pretty much all that's left is that Saddam Hussein was a thug who harmed his own people and threated George H.W. Bush. Since Hussein had been harming his own people for years, both when he was an ally and afterward, with and without US weapons, it does not leave much else as a reason for the invasion.
No conspriracy theory, no "mimmicing other worn out, used up and usless liberal lines," just simply repeating what the man said. If what he said is not a reason, then why did he say it ? Are you saying that it was not a reason ? Are you now denying that it was said ?
Well dirp, you started with facts and followed with your own opinions, which are not the truth.
They did find evidence of WMD's. There was clear evidence, you simply want to ignore them.
And as was truthfully stated, WMD's were not the primary motivation to invade Iraq.
Subsequently, when nothing was found, Democrats still roundly supported the war effort along with Republicans. This constant re-writing of history by liberals is beyond old and childish.
That said - we should not be waging war anywhere outside our borders as we simply cannot afford to do so. Regardless of the "freedom" needed throughout the globe, we have done too much, lost too many lives, and spent too much treasure.
It is time for a new focus on our own nation and our own people.
FAUX NEWS strikes again. WMD were a major factor in the claim that we had to invade Iraq. If they fell into the hands of Al-Qaida we would be in great peril, was the claim. "Evidence" of WMD and actively lethal and deliverable WMD are two entirely different things. Hell, Rumsfeld went to Iraq and sold WMD to Saddam so he could use it on the Iranians and their Kurdish helpers. That doesn't mean it wasn't past its shelf-life expiration date by the time we chose to invade.
Great story Bro!
Of course what they found were the decayed remains of a few inoperable shells left over from the 1980s when Saddam was our "friend", but I tell you there were WMDs!!
The GOPTP Debate. For most of my adult life, I have enjoyed watching the primary and presidential debates along with State of the Union and other presidential addresses, regardless of party. What struck me most in this year's GOPTP debates and again last night compared to previous years including 2007, has been the dramatic shift to the far right of nearly every GOPTP candidate.
Since Ron Paul started running for president, his influence on the GOP has been significant. Because his ideology is pure and anti-government, Paul has become the candidate who has helped drive the views of today's conservative party presidential candidates especially on the debate stage. Paul's libertarian ideology and his personal honesty about those views has helped pull the GOP to the right. So much so that last night, Paul sounded like a moderate, Rick Santorum sounded reasonable, Romney sounded half and half, Huntsman who is a conservative on many issues sounded like a blue-dog democrat compared to the rest of these candidates.
Tuesday, I wrote a comment on First Thoughts asking when we stopped being a nation. That transformation began with Ronald Reagan. As I have said before, I was a registered republican at that time but it was Reagan who took the party and began its shift BACK to the far right. For thirty years, the conservative party has embraced the myth of Ronald Reagan as truth; it has become what Reagan said rather than what Reagan did. Reagan won election because he was anti-government, anti-union, anti-tax, anti-regulation but after his first year, he understood his rigid ideology was a recipe for failure.
The GOPTP today ignores the reality of Reagan who first cut taxes to unsustainable levels and doubled the national debt before recognizing the damage and raising taxes 11 times mostly on the middle class; Reagan who railed against government grew the size of government primarily in defense. Reagan was a pragmatist who believed in working with democrats to achieve a common purpose; that element has disappeared completely from modern conservative thinking as has fiscal responsibility. Today's GOPTP has embraced the words of Reagan not the truth that was Reagan. The candidates on stage last night, with the exception of Ron Paul, all embraced the Reagan myth not the Reagan reality. Every answer they gave, every idea they expressed was rooted in what Reagan said not what he did. Last night there were some interesting moments, some interesting comments and, thanks to the moderators, for the first time there were clear differences established between the GOPTP candidates.
Bachmann was the big loser because every question asked was deflected to either ObamaCare or her family and foster children; clearly she still does not understand Libya or foreign policy let alone government. Neither does Santorum who made some good points but cannot compete with the front runners for reasons to numerous to mention.
Cain's 9-9-9 idea sounds logical but would hurt middle and lower income families more than it would help because it is the middle and lower income families who spend the most thus Cain's national sales tax would result in their paying a higher percentage of their income in sales taxes just to purchase what they need.
Perry was "all hat and no cattle" making lots of noise but saying little; he often sounded stumped by a question slogging his way to a nonsensical answer. His biggest applause came defending the number of executions in Texas.
Huntsman is by far the most intelligent thinker of the GOPTP candidates especially with his views on science and the human factor in the immigration issue which means he cannot gain traction.
Romney, unlike in 2007, hit back hard when his record was questioned, he also expressed support for social security although no follow-up was asked on how he would fix it; Romney probably gained the most from the debate but who knows for how long.
Gingrich sounds like a cantankerous, mean-spirited man stuck in 1994. The bad Newt was clearly present on the stage.
Ron Paul gets points for honesty and for sticking to who he is; he is the only candidate who contradicted the Reagan myth by commenting on the failed policies of Reagan. The problem for Ron Paul is that he is yesterday's news; the Tea Party has stolen his libertarian message and like Pat Buchanan with his continuous runs for President, the party no longer listens beyond his loyal supporters.
Who will be the GOPTP winner? It's a long-time to the end. "We've only just begun."
So True Jody.
You know a few years ago, if any politician brought up the topic of doing away with or cutting back the big three of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, they would be run out of office in no time.
Now, all of a sudden, you see the leaders in the Republican-Tea Potty such as Slick Rick Perry openly preaching that these programs are bad and they want to end then as we know them.
Not only are the social safety net in danger to be gutted and gone, the funds will be turned over to the Wall Street and the Corporate Masters to do whatever they want in so called investments.
What a sad state we are in if someone such as Slick Rick Perry would become President.
America had better wake up and stop the "Republican social engineering."
Here's something else Obama can talk about tonight. More failed results from his $800 billion "Jobs" plan in 2009:
More "unexpected" news for the economy:
It's never clear why this news is "unexpected". With Obama's over-regulation polices and populist attacks on businesses, why would they hire?
Thanks for the debate wrap-up, Jody. I spent a pleasant evening at the PNC Park watching the Pirates beat the Astros in an entertaining game so missed the debates. As I looked around the park I was reminded that we should have more things that unite us, starting with our love for our country, than divide us. It is sad that our politics has become so polarized that we cannot compromise like we once did. And for that I blame career politicians of both parties who can look no further than their next election.
That was a fantastic summary Jody . . . very well said.
P.S. Good Morning Steeler Fan . . . happy NFL kick-off day! :o)
I'm looking forward to the Presidents speech tonight. It will be refreshing event hearing an adult speak compared to the circus from last night.
And yes, are you ready for some football?
Great points all, Jody. Most particularly that the Republican Party is no longer the responsible, center-right party of old, but a radical organization that can't be trusted to govern. Already they've engineered a downgrade in US debt and brought economic progress nearly to a halt. Their rhetoric shows they have no limits in terms of what they'll destroy to gain power.
I simply don't understand Perry's strategy...run a Presidential candidacy on dismantling social security and attacking centuries old settled science? And he's the FRONT runner?? Is he seriously counting on no one voting in the Republican primary who has attained a high school diploma?
Fall is in the air, Nash----glad to see football season back. My Steelers will be tough to beat this year. Good luck to the Titans (except for the week they play us).
A good evening for me tonight----politics and football---doesn't get better than that.
Jody: Your analysis is outstanding. I didn't watch the debate as I was hoping someone like yourself would call it the was it was.
You really expect the Obama cult members on this blog to care about the weekly claims for unemployment, JS1?
Do you think they EVER pay attention to anything that would destroy their version of his "success"? They do not, and will not.
If forced to confront evidence of Obama's failures- such as when monthly unemployment figures are released- they simply use the Obama tactic of blaming somebody or something else.
So, let's just cut this off at the pass, shall we?
Hurricane Irene and Tropical storm Lee probably DID have an impact on weekly claims for unemployment- by depressing the claims. See, if you are flooded in or out of your home, you cannot get out to file a claim. Likewise, if you have no electricity, it will take a little while to file electronically.
Next week should see an even bigger jump- but, don't worry. BLS seems to be having some problems with their tabulations, which is why every week, week in, week out, new claims are revised UPWARD, never downward. Likewise, the new jobs numbers are usually revised downward. Occasionally, more new jobs are found from previous months- but they get revised away the very next month.
The problem for the remaining "true believers" is accepting that Obama is not failing because people believe he's failing- people believe he's failing because he IS failing.
Obama shelved in 2012.
Thanks for the luck Steeler Fan . . . my Titans are going to need it! :o)
I find the Galileo point telling, and representative of most Conservative leaders. For them there is no truth, there are no facts...even science is a matter of what you can sell.
Thanks for adding to my comments and for the kind words about it. Watching was surreal because the contrast between previous GOP presidential debates is so markedly different from the radical ideology they express today. In 10 years, the GOP has shifted so far to the right that they should just call themselves The John Birch Party--the extremists Bill Buckley refused to allow into the conservative fold because they were so radical. Today, the GOP welcomes them with open arms.
Just a side note from a discussion yesterday concerning the fake outrage over the Labor Day remarks from Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
Fox News presented an edited video of Hoffa's remarks
The Edited FOX version goes like this
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong,"
Actually fact checked on what Hoffa said with the real video and transcript.
"Everybody here's got a vote. If we go back and we keep an eye on the prize -- let's take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong."
So FOX took out the line of"
"Everybody here's got a vote. If we go back and we keep an eye on the prize."
Shame on you FOX.
I think Perry's point is not whether "global warming" is occurring, but what is causing it. Business should act responsibly using best environmental protection possible, but the environmental regulations are now overly restrictive. The issue of "science" is will all of our environmental efforts reverse global warming. Many intelligent scientists believe global warming would be happening with or without human activity on the planet.
Then I would have to question their intelligence. Some warming, maybe, but there is no question that man contributes to it, and since the industrial revolution began, warming has increased its pace far beyond what would normally be occurring.
If you're right, then tell me why Governor Perry thought he needed so badly to take credit -- something that other Texans might dispute, by the way -- for reducing ozone and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Why should he have bothered, if it's nothing but a natural phenomenon?
Because he knows better, that's why, and so should you.
This argument is nothing but a dodge perpetrated by those who profit by not acknowledging how man contributes to climate change. It's a form of ignorance that sounds good on its face, but actually serves no one but those few who can make a buck out of polluting the environment.
Do me a favor, and tell it to your children and grandchildren when their air quality rivals that of Beijing.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=beijing+air+quality&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1437&bih=930
Seen the pictures? Give it a look and then see what you think about the "natural" causes of climate change.
Grace House. You make good points that global warming is also a natural occurrence but most scientists believe that human activity is increasing the pace of global warming. Perry does not choose to believe those scientists because it is an inconvenient truth and his state contributes greatly to man's polluting effects on global warming.
One good point John McCain made, before he morphed into bitterness, was that it is better to leave our children and grandchildren with cleaner air and water because we chose to regulate carbon emissions than it is to argue over the science of global warming. He was right.
Jobs I heard him speak in person on Monday, let me run it by you. Starts out with "good evening fellow americans. blah blah blah teaparty......... blah blah blah Sunami.........blah blah blah economy and unemployment.....blah blah blah terrorists (again teaparty) blah blah blah spend $300 billion and we will be fine!
What I found most compelling was Rick Parry's inability to answer or dodge effectively to the question of which scientists he was using to support his thought that the science of global warming being affected by man was not settled. He was asked twice which scientists and could not name one. Tells me that Rick Parry is all BS.
Jody,
Your "Cut and Paste" is GREAT. Let's cite the author to give that person proper dues. Plagiarism is a bad thing.
Paul-Florida,
Jody is consistently one of the best writers on here, so she has no need to cut and paste. She is also one of the most honest, so even if she did quote something to illustrate a point, she would always give credit to the original author. REAL cut-and-pastes on here are actually very easy to expose with a few minutes on Google - I find them all the time.
Accusing someone of plagiarism without any evidence to back it up is also a bad thing. So where is yours?
jolly,
That's good that you were there to see and hear his speech. I also watched the unedited version and he never said the following as FOX news reported:
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong,"
Actually fact checked on what Hoffa said with the real video and transcript.
"Everybody here's got a vote. If we go back and we keep an eye on the prize -- let's take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong."
Job1,
Fox "news" repeatedly aired false information about Hoffa's speech. They are following the same :journalistic integrity" as they did covering the Wisconsin showdown...palm trees and all...
...simply put: FOX "news" LIES...
Amen to that.
John B--I also found Perry's Galileo remarks telling. Galileo was not contradicting "scientists" of his time--he was contradicting the views of the Roman Catholic Church, which was extremely dangerous back then. Subtle distinction, which Perry is not capable of making. People these days, and especially the TP/GOP, seem to lack understanding of not only American history but European history. I guess we are doomed to repeat!
Paul Florida, that's at least twice here you have dismissed someone's original work. You also said the same of GBM's leadoff post. I know both women from long acquaintance and they each produce their own material, as do I mine.
It's a smear tactic, of course, and after seeing the useless garbage you post, I don't see any need to pay further attention to you. Go ahead and lie all you want. People see through your tactics. By the way, I bet you're really popular at basketball pickup games - just pull the ears off and toss them your head to bounce around.
Good post Jody! I'll be voting Obama at this point but there is a conservative I would vote for if he won the republican lead. Buddy Roehmer. On his campaign finance reform alone.
Paul, FL. Sorry, Paul, just because you can't string a sentence together into a cohesive comment doesn't mean I can't. I write my own material. When I quote someone, you will see quotes; if I use portions of an article, you will see the source. So instead of demanding I quote a source, why don't you provide the proof that I plagiarized it. Otherwise, go whine somewhere else.
nurse, it's both telling and ironic that Perry didn't recognize he was making a comparison which makes the GOPTP look bad. You are correct in pointing out that Galileo's problem wasn't lack of consensus among scientists -- it was religion trying to assert its supremacy over reality.
Today Conservatives are trying to assert their beliefs over science once again. Perry is on the side of the Inquisition, along with the rest of the GOPTP.
Perry and Romney are the "front-runners"?
Perry looked like a bad used car salesman on that stage last night.
Romney looked like the CEO who just gave you a pink slip and sent your job to China.
Da Noid You have Romney confused with Jeff Immelt of GE who gave a lot of people in Wisconsin the pink slip to move his operation to China. And he is the President's point man on the council for job creation and competitiveness, I don't hear the President condemning his move to China and for possibly giving classified avionics technology for chinese military aircraft. Maybe you have something of interest on Immelt.
We've been down this path before, richard. I didn't hear an answer from any Conservative on this one, maybe you've thought of something clever by now.
As CEO of GE, Immelt's fiduciary responsibility is to maximize profit.
Should he compromise his fiduciary responsibility to GE if he compromises that just because he's an adviser to the President?
If he does, isn't he incompetent as a CEO and therefore shouldn't he be fired?
So the real problem isn't Immelt or GE, it's a law that encourages moving jobs overseas.
Are Republicans prepared to stop blocking changes to that law?
I didn't see all of the debate last night . . . but I did see Newt Gingrich trying to be a part of "the team" . . . lol . . . time to get a job Newt! :o)
Is it just me, or don't Rick Perry and Mitt Romney look like brothers? lol
I thought MSNBC did a nice job with the debates, the parts I saw and the analysis afterward. Liked the tribute to Ronald and Nancy Reagan . . . looked like Nancy liked it too.
I think that having the Republican Party stand before the American people and talk about their ideas is just the best thing that can happen for the Obama campaign . . . looking forward to more Republican debates . . . and Rick Perry telling us how Social Security is a ponzi scheme . . . next debate, I WILL have my popcorn! :o)
P.S. Looking forward to OUR PRESIDENT'S speech tonight . . . no matter how much folks continue to disrespect our President, he continues to do what he was elected to do - work to make thinks better for all of us. No matter how much ya'll snipe and attack, history will show that President Obama is doing his job, with no help from Congress and no reality from the media. I for one am proud as hell of him.
Amen, Nashville. I am sorry that the Republicans have chosen to treat our President with such disrespect but I am proud of him as well and have never regretted my vote. Am looking forward to the speech tonight--we'll see if the Republicans choose to put the American middle class ahead of their wealthy base.
Nash and SF...... I too am very proud of our President and fully support all his endeavours. I dont always agree with everything, but reason I dont have all the facts that come into play when making decisions and trust him to make the correct decision in the best interests of the American people. Too bad the Republicans can't/wont help him make the country better.
Their support and consideration would go a long way to helping the country get back on its feet. I would like one of their supporters to tell why they cant do anything to help make things a little better, and wanting him gone doesn't count.
I was listening on XM and about LMAO when I heard Newt's voice. I thought for sure he was OUT of the running. But his Kumbayah, we're all focused on getting Obama out was pretty funny. He clearly missed the Romney/Perry 1-2 in the opening round.
The whole thing struck me as hysterical, except that they are serious. Romney is going to sign an Executive Order to END Obamacare? Really? And then once they've struck down Obamacare/Social Security/Medicare THEN (and only then) they will DISCUSS ways to fix these items? RIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHHHHHHHHHHHT. I bet they have some swamp land with mythical creatures and magical herbs that will CURE all!
They are so full of crap they were literally telling each other they didn't smell anything. More GROUP think on tax cuts and deregulation. Why didn't Brian Williams point out that McClatchey just proved NONE of that is holding back small businesses?
Republicans are now the anti intellectuals who disavow the obvious so they can avow the misrepresentations. And they do it with a smirk on their face and their hand in their pocket so no one can see their 'crossed fingers' as they make deals with devils to get the power they so desparately crave.
I have neither the patience nor the time to watch them race each other to the bottom of the gene pool. If they don't PIVOT back to at least complete sentences,...it won't matter which one of them 'WINS' the nomination prize,...the only thing they will really have to show for it is the NEW McCain 'booby' prize.
I wonder if Perry's even considered what it will do to his Southern Strategy political career to LOSE to a half black man? Yeehaww.
Clara:
Love your post . . . clear and fearless . . . you better preach! :o)
Nashville, completely agree. The more the Reps talk, the prouder I am of our POTUS. Looking forward to a great evening... President and Football!
Dear MSNBC folks:
Are you trying to outfox FOX? According to your own numbers, poll participants said Ron Paul destroyed the opposition nearly three to one. Your bar graph doesn't even come close to reflecting that. In fact, he almost outpolled the other seven candidates COMBINED.
Come on guys. That's embarrassing.
Ron Paul isn't spoken in the beltway David, it's some kind of an unwritten beltway law, Ron Paul scares the hell out of the people who hand out the checks in the beltway, so if you want a check you are forbid from ever uttering his name. Free press my a$$, corporate owned press is the fact.
Ron Paul came off the worst. Are you kidding, go back to a gold and silver standard which Paul says is in the constitution but is actually not. There isn't enough gold and silver in the world to cover a $17.5 trillion economy. So our economy is going to be held hostage to whether we can find more gold in the world? What happens if we can't? Do we just stop growing the economy until we find something else? These are the problems and the reason we got off the gold standard in the first place. It would limit the US to a third class economy. But Paul does not see that far ahead. This is one of the reasons I would never vote for him. He has no future vision for the growth of our country.
Oh please: stop with the 'best kept secret' conspiracy already. Is there any voter in America who doesn't know about this extremist by now??
Yes, and let's get rid of all regulation of automobile safety. Apparently Dr. Paul slept through the 1960's, when Ralph Nader exposed all of that, in turn exposing HIM to the wrath of General Motors, as I have outlined in my own post below.
Leave safety to auto manufacturers? When pigs fly.
Well then, Let them fly.... Would you buy a unsafe automobile for your Family?
Matthew Silva: unregulated auto industry.... Chevy Corvair, Chevette. Energy... Enron, Financial industry... S & L crisis in the 1980's, banking crisis in 2008-2009. Yeah, we need to get rid of any government regulation like we need to go back to feudal rule.
Funny you mention, some of those examples are products of Government regulation.
REALLY?! Pray tell, which? Go down and read my post about the Corvair and maybe read a little history to see what really happened in the auto industry. Enron was a product of DE-regulation, over the dead body of Gray Davis, as I recall it, and the S&L crisis in the 1980's was a product of RONALD REAGAN's non-regulation policies, as was the financial crisis of 2008.
As for buying an unsafe car, tell me Matthew, exactly how would you know in advance? Like all those Toyota buyers who purchased those cars with the accelerator that stuck. Or all the people who, despite government regulation, still get sick or worse every year because of salmonella or e-coli in the food they buy?
If this stuff still happens WITH regulation, try to imagine what it would be like WITHOUT it.
Or maybe read Upton Sinclair's book, THE JUNGLE. He already imagined it for you.
And tell me, are you also for taking away the rights of those who are injured by unsafe products to sue the manufacturers for those defects?
On second thought, I take that back. It's pretty easy to see what you are.
David is correct that the press seems to be burying Ron Paul's apparently wide spread support (not that I am among them). He is very correct about the misleading graph on the MSNBC poll last night and that his popularity appears to scare the moneyed interests intensely. I think even those who funded the rise of the tea party in order to get Republicans elected did not intend for that to happen.
Ray is correct, however, that going back to the gold standard would be disasterous. The whole reason the FDR started the process of getting off the gold standard, which Nixon finally finished, was that in times like these investors rush to gold and the price goes up.
There once was a time when $20 was almost an ounce of gold. When the depression hit gold skyrocketed. If you had a loan or wanted to borrow money for one you debt essentially increased hugely. This is what happens when you have deflation, everyone in debt gets further in debt.
After enduring the spectacle of the champions of the wealthy debating last evening the only thing I came away with is the only truly honest person on the stage was Ron Paul, even if you disagree with his beliefs you have to admire his true love of the country and his rejection of the "powers that be", the other candidates all seemed as plastic as the "king" portrayed on those annoying Burger King commercials.
I think the plastic Burger King is beyond annoying--he is creepy. Some of the candidates on that stage make me feel the same way.
Do you think it was purely coincidence Burger King retired him? lol
W.bush... the vision of a tailor's dummy came to mind
Steeler Fan - you may not have like the group last night but any one of them is better than 1 Term 0bama. Remember the last time the Dems had a large group running for POTUS??? It was 2004 and you had upstanding people like Al Sharpton, John Edwards, Carol M. Braun, Howard Dean and John F. Kerry on the stage. There were several others but I can't recall their names.
Any of the GOP candidates running will beat 1 Term 0bama - get used to the idea. (I hope our Steelers start the season out strong this weekend - should be good game tonight)
Rev Al reminds me of a Black Capt Lou Albano! He needs a few rubber bands in his hair and beard!
Black belt--glad to hear from a fellow Steeler fan---looking forward to Sunday's showdown with Baltimore.
I actually am optimistic about the President's chances for re-election. I could see some of your candidates giving him a fight but think you are a little bit over the top to say that they ALL would beat him----some of them are pretty far out there.
Steeler - I really meant the mainstream candidates - I don't think Huntsman, Santorum or Paul could beat 0bama and the jury is still out on Bachmann and Cain. I think that there is a majority of the people in the country that will vote for anyone but 0bama - no matter who the GOP candidate is - but we shall see - that is the fun part about prognosticating about political elections.
Sure ready for it to quit raining here on the Eastern side of the state - (Lehigh Valley)
Tough Steelers game but I don't think Ravens are that good this year - but you never know until after a few games. (Rivalry games are always tough)
"I actually am optimistic about the President's chances for re-election"
Really, Steeler Fan? - Tell me what is the President running on. What did he and the Democrats accomplished during the last 2 1/2 years. If you can convince me I will vote for him again. And please no more blame game or race card, I am tired of that.
It will all boil down to the biggest issue "JOBS". No matter how much rambling the democrats make, it is still JOBS, JOBS and JOBS stupid. This administration spent 4T in two and half years, yet nothing to show. You may criticize how GOP candidates look or you don't agree with their core values, at the end of the day, every single one of them agree that 14 million Americans need JOBS. And that's what the Democrats have to deal with.
W: And what have the GOP done to create jobs? When they were running in 2010, they made a Pledge to America, which included job creation. All I've seen them do since they were voted in is to blockage EVERY bill that any Democrat has put forth, and I'm sure we can safely assume they will block any idea that President Obama comes up with tonight also. They ran on "job creation," but they haven't done ANYTHING or come up with ANY ideas for job creation since they were elected in 2010....what have they been doing for the past year or so??? I'd LOVE to know what job creation ideas they've come up with because I don't remember hearing any of them!
Rep. Paul made two good observations: 1) a fence that keeps "aliens" out also keeps us fenced in, victims of our own xenophobia, and 2) President Reagan's "theories" were fine, but what he put into practice was deficit spending and tax increases.
The most interesting part of the debate for me was the fuss over immigrants. Gov. Perry, who wants to make Washington irrelevant and who wants to cut spending, has decided that what we need are "boots on the ground..," thousands of them, all along the border with Mexico (eventually this would have to extend to the border with Canada as well). He thinks predator drones might be good. Coupled with the response to his "ultimate justice" in Texas and his fabled shooting of a coyote, one imagines Gov. Perry gunning down people walking along the border. Gov. Romney would go further -- he wants a fence (he kept saying "technological," so maybe he thinks a force field fence would work), he wants to punish people who hire illegal aliens (like the contractor who sent illegal immigrants to do his landscaping). How would he punish them? Although they are all against mandates, they would "mandate" that immigrants learn English (which would require figuring out when enough English has been "learned"....and unless they are going to arrest people who speak other languages, is pretty unenforceable). They claim they are open to immigration -- but they only want the best and brightest....this is either an acknowledgement that the "best and brightest" people are NOT Americans right now, so we need to import them, OR it's a slap at the poor, huddled masses yearning to be free. What America needs are people willing to do labor -- masons, carpenters, landscapers, farm workers.....
They are all against big government, Kate, until they want the government to do something like pay for fences to keep people out. They are all for states' rights until it is something that they want the federal government to pay for. They are against FEMA until the disaster hits their state. They are all the offspring of immigrants but don't want more immigration. It could make you dizzy.
That's exactly why this crop depends on the least educated voter, but can't win in a general election. (and they're not terribly good at math either...running against social security and immigration is a winning strategy??)
Every time the tea people GOP republicans are out of power, they bring up that social security is broke and won't be able to pay the younger generation. It's a scare tactic. The thing is the older generation such as me understand this.
I went through this same thing in the seventies and eighties. At that time republicans convinced me SS wouldn't be around when I got to retirement, I was young and dumb and believed them. Now I'm at retirement and SS is better than ever Just like then, when the election is over and the tea people GOP republicans have lost congress, the senate and the whit house, we'll hear nothing about SS anymore. That is until the next election cycle. All the tea people GOP republicans have is to beat up on SS, medicare and medicaid, to try and scare the younger voters.
Social Security is solvent, a success, and adjustable to insure its continuation. Medicare and Medicaid are economic disasters......don't lump them in with SS.
Mo......they havent been around that long! Unless you mean the original TeaParty!
Jolly,
I guess 8 months is a long time to some.
Not a single candidate mentioned implementing E-Verify...That alone speaks volumes about their immigration views. As long as business reaps the benefits from illegal labor, it's ok with them!
Did anyone see the commercial that showed a yuppie looking (english only) guy saying that illegal immigration is a big problem, but a bigger one is legal immigration. He said something to the affect that legal immigration should be stopped, we've had enough.
Those are the types of people I speak Spanish in front of because I know it pisses them off.
Of course. If that attitude was good enough for St. Ronald Reagan, who never fully implemented the 1986 immigration law, it's good enough for them, too.
Yes, I saw it, too, but figured I must have misunderstood it. Sheesh.
In my own opinion, however, there is some validity to the argument that we need a national language. I don't care whose it is: Spanish is fine, although English is easiest from a personal perspective; but really we should have ONE language that unifies us and makes the "melting pot" melt more easily. People can speak whatever they want in private, but we will get farther together if we speak one language as a country. Maybe I'm deluded, but I actually believe that this is a liberal idea.
J Campbell Mitt Romney addressed the employer issue, do you not recall the magnet analogy. He also said that employers who hire illegals should be punished.
Anna - We do have a national language in English already, I just don't see why the mandate fearing GOP would want a federal mandate on what we speak here.
Obviously, English in the latino community or any immigrant community is a priority to increase and further one's educational opportunities and help become integrated into the culture.
I enjoy the ability in public and private to exercise my freedom of speech in either language. Besides, before I married got me a few dates too :}
Obviously, none of the GOP candidates have heard that the Mexicans are now building TUNNELS UNDER the border....what's a fence going to stop?
Funny...just before his 5-week bender, Boehner made it seem that our top priority was controlling spending. Now it's jobs? Damn, I wish he'd make up his mind.
Translation: "We've invited a bunch of rich guys who want lower taxes in spite of their record profits."
I hope the private-sector job creators have the good sense to get to Washington on public transportation -- any more private corporate jets and Gucci shoes will undercut Rep. Boehner's message. Frayed cuffs, taped-up glasses and stained ties might sell better.
As indicated above, DN, his REAL agenda and that of all Conservative leaders is to lie to the American people about their real agenda.
Da noid........ dont you have a job , Yet?
Looks like it's down to 2 out-of-touch-with-the-average-American billionaires running for the GOP nomination. This should play well with the President's re-election bid: a flip-flop ex-governor, or a separatist current governor. Hmm, which one of these clowns actually gives a rip about your job prospects?
Curious to see what the President proposes tonight, and hope he grows a set finally to confront the obstructionists in Congress.
More like powder puffs then a slug fest !
The same one we always see: "Lecturing Obama" because, of course, the almightly is so much wiser than we are. Isn't it clear by now he knows all the answers and we're simply idiots? But I guess he has a point. There are those that voted for him and frighteningly enough many seem to be planning on doing it again!
1 Term 0bama will get 35 - 40% of the koolaid drinker vote and be swept out in a Red landslide. 1 Term 0bama knows it as do Dem pundits Carville and Begala.
Remember Joe Biden's comments in October of 2008? Who knew the "manufactured crisis" sent to "test" President Obama would be from his own country. Who would have thought Republicans would spend their whole time out of power just obstructing efforts to improve our economy?
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.
"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."
I know I can count on everyone else here to say extremely pithy, and substantive, things about last night's debate.
I have just one comment I want to make about that, involving the continuing irresponsible comments by Ron Paul and others about getting rid of all government regulations.
Last night, Congressman Paul said -- rather "appallingly," I thought -- that we didn't need any federal regulation of automobile safety -- that ought to be left completely up to the auto manufacturers and consumers.
Needless to say, my jaw dropped. Evidently, Dr. (Congressman) Paul has forgotten exactly why it is that Ralph Nader is famous today. To remind him, and others out here, of why we need regulation of automobile safety, I need give you only five words --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92hA0Ny86Fo&feature=relmfu
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE. The same irresponsible corporatists who brought you unsafe automobiles are trying to do it AGAIN, and they are using ignorant tools like Dr. Paul and the other Republican candidates to do it for them.
And from the heartland, for anyone who has the heart to read it, is a short article on what has happened to the teaching profession in my state now that Scott Walker has succeeded in his campaign to rape and pillage it.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/dave_zweifel/article_f96306f5-86ec-5a8d-8015-9dff39b7adf0.html
The article talks about school districts in the Milwaukee area that are using this opportunity to gain some sort of vengeance against teachers. It's not just talk. I have personally seen evidence of this from one such school district, where the punitive measures taken against teachers include the banning of coffee machines and microwave ovens, even though teachers are the ones who provide those conveniences for themselves. How this has any reasonable impact on education is beyond me to understand.
But the larger question posed in the article, and the one that I have posed here before, is why on earth ANYONE would enter the teaching profession in Wisconsin after this -- knowing that they will never make more money -- in real dollars -- than they started with, and knowing that they will become slaves to the passing whims of uneducated and ignorant school board members who apparently want to get even for something in their own childhood or for some situation where one of their own children had a bad encounter with a teacher.
You can demonize teachers all you want, but in the end, all that makes you is vindictive and short-sighted. If you're proud of yourselves, so be it. But to borrow a quotation from a friend:
Again, WAKE UP SHEEPLE.
Great points, AM. The Republicans are radicals, to such an extent it doesn't even occur to them how radical they sound to the rest of us.
A little more explanation about Nader's book -- UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED -- for those who may be too young or who have never heard about it otherwise --
And a big OOPS -- I see that instead of a link to the article on Nader's book, I gave you a beautiful time-lapse video of the Milky Way over Yumi Lake.
Just to show you I do have another life.
Anyway, mea culpa, and here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
Enjoy the video.
Great post, Anna Molly. Too much government regulation is another argument that sounds good in theory but we have learned that the practice doesn't match the theory. It would be nice to think that corporations won't pollute and will go the extra mile for safety---either because it is the right thing to do or because of fear of economic consequences of selling bad products---but we know that isn't true. They will put lives at risk to enhance their bottom line.
Well AM, first thanks for the beautiful video, it brought me some serenity this morning.'
Now, I believe I am somewhat qualified to speak about the Auto Industry, unlike most of the mis-informed here on this board. (I won't count you in that statement, for now)
Yes, I agree that Safety had to be regulated as a matter of course in the past. But if you had any idea of the competing regulations that are being thrust upon Auto makers today, it might actually surprise you.
See Cafe standards of 40 mph directly conflict with Roof Crush and Side Impact requirements of several 'G' impacts and multiple rollovers. (Safety generally means added weight, CAFE means lighter cars)There are MVSS, IHSS, NHTSA, Euro ENCAP, FMV, Ped-Pro, Side Imapct, Offset Impact, Front and Rear Impact, Narrow Offset Impact, Roof Crush, Danner Barrier impact, Vision etc regulations that todays cars have to meet.
Now, here's the rub. These regulations, to a point have worked well for the Auto Industry. They found a way to market safety. Ask any soccer mom what the first thing she looks for in a vehicle and her answer will be safety. If it's not a 5 - star vehicle they won't buy it.
So safety regulations have worked, no doubt. Saved lives and made the Auto Makers money in the long run. Cost consumers money, but it was money they were willing to spend.
It's all these "Feel Good" regulations, CAFE etc, that are killing the Auto Industry.
The OEM's could market Safety, they can't market stupidity.
There is no need for the government to interfere, look car manufactures are still occasionally making unsafe cares (Toyota with its accelerator problem). This is a man of principle he feels if a bunch of people wanted to make all the laws the fed gov has they can do so in their own states, its the bureaucracy that comes with a large central government that he does not want. I love how so many people are so short sighted thinking the free market can't take dangerous automobile manufactures to court if they were selling unsafe cars, but we can but as a result tax money goes into more central government spending. And what a lot of people need to take note is that the most money is being spent on wars, and Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party that would do something to make our troops safer and lives better.
Although he probably won't be elected (Paul) because the media and the sheeple who follow the media are being told not to vote for him, and that your only choices right now are Obama/RomneyPerry, which all have already been bought and paid for and will make fundamentally the same decisions regardless of who wins.
Vote Ron Paul 2012.
Anna Molly et al.:
I think I'd better take the opportunity to point out that I am not supporting a Paul Presidency. As I pointed out earlier, his views are just peachy-keen.....in a perfect world. Of course, the same can be said of communism, Marxism, capitalism, and all the ism's you may care to name.
The anti-regulation/pro-personal responsibility simply doesn't fly. The Corvair is one example, exploding Pinto gas tanks, and secret recalls are just a few examples within the auto industry. Bankers of course are paragons of honesty. They would never abuse their customers. Health insurance companies NEVER deny treatment to their customer. The drug industry is your friend, too.
I have been looking for an opportunity to bring up this issue. I urge everyone reading this to do your own personal research on drugs. Yes, there are any number of studies, but very few are long-term. (Who is positioned to actually monitor those results? The government! That's it. The government. Please remember, that's you and me.) In any case, we are routinely warned of "side effects". That's BS. They are EFFECTS. Period. What is now the wonder drug, Viagra, was at one time a "side effect". (Actually, maybe that's accurate because you can see the effect from the side.)
Do you really imagine that Big Pharma is going to look at the interactions between something like sucralose, which you can snag right off a grocer's shelf, and amitriptyline, a prescription drug? Hell no, they won't. In fact, sucralose qualifies as what is called a "space-alien molecule". This stuff does NOT exist in nature. Your body is not meant to process this crap. No big deal! Someone is making big money on this and that's all that's important, right?
So endeth that epistle. The point here is that regulation AND inspection are absolutely necessary. When the profits of corporations, which are really people just like us because Mitt Romney says so, are the only consideration, safety is a cost that eats into those profits. In all too many cases, it's far cheaper to pay for a wrongful death than to correct the problem. That's a fact. We really do need government to monitor greed and its very deadly side effects, but that doesn't mean we can't still help ourselves.
That said. I still like Ron Paul. He's true to his principles and he's honest, I think. It's just that his principles don't reflect reality and he won't get my vote.
A man of principle? Expediency, more like it.
This is totally preposterous. Republicans want to take away BOTH the government regulations AND the right of individuals to recover when they are injured by unsafe products.
Now why do you suppose that is?
Read Nader's book and get a clue. Paul is right about the wars, but totally wrong about this.
Well, you got it half right. Now, tell it to Derek.
While we're on the subject, though, you might also want to have a look at the photos of the air quality of Beijing, which I posted up above, for another ignorant conservative who wants to deny that we need to regulate auto emissions.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=beijing+air+quality&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1437&bih=930
In fact, the only way they were able to host the Olympics was that they had to temporarily restrict the number of autos that were able to enter Beijing each day in order to temporarily clear the air, at least partially, so as to fool people like you into thinking there was no problem. Those photos above show what it looks like every day because they're not bothered with pesky "feel good" CAFE regulations and such.
So glad you could find some serenity today, sir. Now tell it to the people of Beijing. They no doubt have no hope whatsoever, short of a video, to even SEE the Milky Way through the smog and the light pollution.
And this is what you appear to aspire to here. Be proud.
AM, They put less cars on the road in Beijing because they couldn't shut the factories down, who are responsible for most of the poor air quality.
Comparing China manufacturing and the US? That's a stretch, even for you.
I guess now I have to add you to the un-informed about the Auto Industry. Catalytic Converters. Ever heard of em? They were put in US cars in 1975. China adopted the Euro 1 standard for Catalytic converters in 1999, but the Euro 1 doesn't come close to th US Regulations.
Live in the past like our friend David up there, still talking about Pintos that exploded and Corvairs from the 1970's.
This may be hard to believe, but them there horseless carriages have come a long way in the past few decades. Why some of them even have those new fangled compooters with the intra-web in 'em.
When wil you people realize you can not regulate technology? Safety was there because the technology existed. Thicker steel, heavier cars and eventually Air-Bags.
Sometimes you all are just frustrating.
The only thicker steel I see is that from republican thinking. Modern cars are lighter and full of plastic and are largely not as safe as their ages old counterparts. See current insurance rates for proof.
Right on Auto...We manufacture some of the best safety products in the market today for every auto manufacturer (Im outting my self to auto, he should be able to figure it out) From brakes to rear cameras and seat belts with airbags. I watched a live demo last week of our new assisted braking product for VW and BMW. What limits us IS gov regulations over and above whats necessary!
Ah thanks Auto for the refreshing common sense post.
I love it when people bring up past events as justifications for endless regulations. The same things would have happened with or without regulation, because quite simply, you don't know what to regulate until something happens. So lets just say government was regulating things during those times, we STILL would have had the corsair, and we STILL would have had those pintos.
You see, whats great about the free market is the consumer can regulate, by not purchasing. And anyone can expose things for what they are, and inform the general public. And hell, even companies can become credible and take it upon themselves to do these things and be better at it than the government. As Auto said above, safety was there because the technology existed.
So maybe you should step down from your soap box AM and give that inflated ego of yours a rest. Nothing is more annoying than a clueless woman who thinks she knows everything about everything.
That is absolute and total BS auto industry propaganda, and you know it. The factories were one component, but the part about the cars was well-publicized at the time, and I remember it clearly. Here's just one of many articles on that topic.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1822476,00.html
Shame on you for spreading such a falsehood. Someone like you should know better.
So glad I annoy you. But any thought that I would "step down from [my] soap box" because I was told to do so by a misogynist, authoritarian male who doesn't even know that WCA's post is wrong should probably be dismissed as just wishful thinking, which, if you are trusting industry to regulate itself, you clearly are the King of.
Get over yourself, why don't you?
I hope I don't need to remind you that airbags had to be mandated by Jimmy Carter, and survived only because a wise Supreme Court overruled the Reagan administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/25/us/high-court-backs-airbags-mandate.html
That mandate was they needed to have an air bag OR an automatic seatbelt. So basically its the automaker's fault if someone dies in a car accident because they didn't buckle their seatbelts.
And therein lies the problem with government regulation. What happened to people being responsible for themselves and their own safety?
But not only that what happened to a person being able to choose for themselves whats safe and what isn't? Some people don't even want airbags because they are dangerous in themselves.
What I find the most amusing however, is you call people who like to think for themelves sheeple when you're just a big government cheerleader.
AM, there you go again with a lack of understanding. Danisme is correct. In fact I did my thesis on Passive restraint systems and it was proven at the time that automatic seatbelts were a more reliable way to protect occupants. Again, at the time Airbag technology was not there yet.
The problem was that we had to go and count on people to fasten their seatbelt or die. Now with the help of seat belt laws "Click it or Ticket" deaths have gone down dramatically. But, law or no law, it is for the most part because of education. My daughters know not to get in a car without buckling their seat belts, just as they know not to get into a car with driver who has been drinking. Turns out people don't want to die in their cars because someone else doesn't know how to drive.
I know libs have a real hard time with personal responsibility but that is all that it is. Air bags save lives, but seat belts save more with less injury.
Smog.
projections of an air turnaround for the Olympics are based in part
"Based in part", if they could have shut down the factories, the smog probably would have gone away completely.
So I guess horse drawn carriages, blacksmiths and lanterns are what you really want. To bad that is not what the rest of the world desires or needs.
Hey Amused, I'll add you to the list of mis-informed (in this case stupid) people on this site. Do you really want to make an argument that cars are not as safe now as they were 30 years ago?
That.Is.Just.Stupid.
Thanks, by the way. That's the first time I have ever been lowered to calling someone stupid on this site, and believe me, it hasn't been easy.
I know you're not that silly. Everyone knows this. I'm liberal and I wear my seatbelt all the time. I'm also a BIG believer in personal responsibility, and have never been a recipientof government assistance in any way. I just happen to think there is a place for regulation because not everyone, including many conservatives, do not accept their personal responsibility.
For example, what about the redneck motorcycle guys who don't want to wear their helmets? They call it liberty, but in truth, what does that say about THEIR personal responsibility? And why do conservatives always get mad when I say -- jokingly, by the way -- that I don't want to have to pay increased health insurance premiums because of THEIR irresponsibility? Why should I? Isn't it really the same issue? But they would no doubt disagree with that because they can't see the big picture through their own "me first" way of thinking.
If you go back and actually read the article, you will find that they did do some closures on the factories, which they thought might account for 30 percent of the problem. But the cars accounted for more.
I didn't think you'd actually have the guts to bring the factory issue up, however, as all that does is highlight the need to regulate factory pollution, which also seems like something you would oppose.
Guess I was wrong. Kudos for your bravery.
So I guess that means you don't have the guts to bring up your lack of understanding of the airbag mandate? And how supporting such a mandate goes against your preaching of being so big on self responsibility?
Give me a break.
AM, as all that does is highlight the need to regulate factory pollution,
You keep talking like this is the United States we are discussing. Factory Polloution, Car Pollution, etc are all regulated here in the good old USA.
If you want to take on China, I hope you have a lot of time, because you will need to go after India right after that.
The rest of the world doesn't like us telling them how to live, especially when it hampers their economic growth.
I guess we have beaten this dead horse for now. Obviously, you think you know more about the Auto Industry than my 25 years working in it have afforded me.
Next time some lawyerin' stuff comes up, I'll be sure to jump in and tell you that you are wrong.
Oh Boy, look at the next thread! Perfect timing......
Anna Molly, great post. Thanks.
What is frustrating is that, even with the facts in front of them, conservatives cannot see or understand.
If corporations would behave themselves, there would be no need for regulations. But corporations cannot behave. They are interested in profit over everything else, safety, useability, even marketability. Conservatives like to say it is a states problem, not a federal problem. If that were true, we would have products manufactured for regional appeal that could not be sold anywhere else. Hardly a recipe for corporate success.
As for White Collar's point about overly involved requirements, that's what innovation is all about. If manufacturing only concentrated on what was deemed possible, we would not have many of the great innovations we have today. If someone in the early 1900s had been tasked with creating a hand held smartphone, he would have complained that it could not be done too. And yet...
But not for long, if conservatives get their way. Or do you think they're all joking? And if so, why?
@ fielden -- excellent points, well stated. Especially:
Conservatives out here tell us all the time that the sole purpose for corporations to exist is to turn a profit for their shareholders. And then those same conservatives turn around and tell us to trust those corporations to look out for us. We know they won't. They never have before unless someone made them do it.
When it all said and done, last nights debate will probably stack up as more informative than tonights lecture from Obama. Someone needs to explain to Obama that money doesn't come from the tooth fairy. The private sector generates money and tax revenue. The economy will not improve given this President's attitude and anti-business policies. Entrepreneurs have decreased in this country by over one million due to this administrations policies. Yet Obama keeps talking about how his policies have helped small business. Again, the actions do not match the talk. 32 months of failed government "sugar" highs just masked the problem. Another 16 months of more of the same will result in the same weak economy with zero job growth.
When its all said and done, the only light shed last night was on just how pathetic this crop of lightweight Republicans really is...no new plans...same old 40 year old empty failed strategies...cut MORE corporate taxes, whine whine about profits not being HIGH enough, cut out what's left of American competitiveness, slash education spending, discourage the best and brightest from coming here from around the world, balance deficits on those who can least afford it...complain about OVER regulation for the memory challenged followers who can't even remember the disastrous near meltdown due to UNDER regulation of the financial industry...and then tout THEIR state stole the MOST jobs from others, created the most low paying jobs and SPENT the most federal dollars getting there. Luckily, not everyone in this country has difficulty following the dots.
Tony I am growing weary of this Obama "anti business" non-sense, what exactly are all these "anti business" policies Obama implemented?
Bush thought the money was going to come from the tooth fairy to pay for the wars and tax cuts. The tooth fairy didn't show up and now the republicans think that it all should be paid for with cuts only to the poor.
The rich, they suffer too much to ask the rich to pay fair taxes. The republicans think we should kill social security and put the money in the stock market that robs American ever couple years now.
Then what do we do with the millions of people that get robbed by the stock market, just let them starve? People lost 1/2 of their 401K's in 2008. How much was lost in this last crash to 401Ks? If that was your entire retirement, it could get mighty scary.
Don't worry the rich will be alright and that's all that matters to the republicans.
w bush - it is called regulations. In July alone the 0bama regime implemented $10 billion in new regulations that biz has to navigate to do biz. You don't make money when you have extra people pushing paper to make sure that you are in compliance with new govt regulations. The biggest anti-business program is 0bamacare but that will get thrown out by SCOTUS but it is causing all kinds of wasted money by corps to get ready in case it doesn't get thrown out. My small biz has a plan if 0bamacare becomes law and 0bama gets re-elected. I retire at 55 and shut it down and 65 people are looking for a new job.
black belt, why not shut it down now and go ahead and move to somalia. If you like no rules they have a place for guys like you. As for the rest of us, we're tired of being ripped off by the no rules guys.
black belt 3 whines: "The biggest anti-business program is 0bamacare"
==================================================================
How exactly is Obamacare going over-burden this alleged business you own? Do tell
Will someone tell me where all the so called job creators are the tea people GOP republicans keep talking about? It's a buzz word, sound bite nothing else. There is no such thing as a job creator. When you don't have anything to offer you make up words. That was the main theme you heard form the tea people GOP republicans last night. Their favorite buzz word, sound bite.
You mean buzz words like laser focused and shovel ready......
black belt. Don't try to explain the benefit of the free market system to people who believe in socialism. They have been brain washed with textbooks in school from socialist teachers who describe this socialist utopia to them. The spruce goose looked good on paper too. Real life example of this utopia is Cuba. Cuba looks like 1959 for a reason. It doesn't work.
You are right, the amount of regulations that this administration has burdened business with is out of control. Business can't even obtain the rules associated with the regulations in most cases. The other issue is the insanity like the Gibson Guitar situation. There are thousands of pages of new regulations that are costing billions. The new healthcare law is another example. The votoers are figuring it out. The polls show it. Yes, liberals will point to Congress's approval. That won't change Obama's approval.
By the way, W Bush, we all are growing weary after 32 months of the failed policies of Obama. This from a President who claimed he would fix Bush's mess in 3 years or he didn't deserve a second term. Obama also criticized Bush for his deficit spending, actually called Bush unpatriotic for running up the credit card from China. Now Obama is doing exactally the same thing. Obama should apply the same label to himself if he felt deficit spending was unpatriotic then, he is spending more and proposes even more.
w bush and Amused - it is the regulations in 0bamacare that are killing small biz. We dont qualify for the exemptions from it and are not small enough to get away from it? (yet) They haven't even finished writing the regulations for it yet so my Accounting group can't even tell me the entire negative consequences yet. There are no positive consequences. We are a surgi-center - but we can't self insure ourselves because we don't cover all specialties etc. We are becoming a center that is very specialized in elective procedures so that we don't have to deal with insurance or Medicare/Medicaid. Our plan is that if 0bama wins is to shut down the group. I will retire and move to my ski house and work a few days of the month. Some of the other guys are just retiring. The nurses and receptionists etc - well they join the unemployed ranks for a while. I know very few guys like me who are over 50 that will put up with the govt telling them how to run their businesses (more than happens now) Get ready for Dr's from India, China and Pakistan if 0bamacare stays the law of the land.
Tony C - you are right - I just wasted a few minutes of my time today trying to explain to the koolaid drinkers why this is bad for the country. Even if they wanted to understand - they wouldn't because they are after all - koolaid drinkers.
No problem, one thing for sure, liberals never let facts get in the way of their desire to spread misinformation and exaggerations along with misrepresenting what someone who disagrees with them might have said.
Your ignorance is stunning. The law ensnaring Gibson Guitar is the Lacey Act of 1900, originally passed to regulate trade in bird feathers used for hats and amended in 2008 to cover wood and other plant products. It requires companies to make detailed disclosures about wood imports and bars the purchase of goods exported in violation of a foreign country's laws.
Um, George W. Bush was president in 2008 when the law was amended. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good lie!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576542942027859286.html
One thing for sure, conservatives never let facts get in the way of their desire to spread misinformation and exaggerations along with misrepresenting what someone who disagrees with them might have said.
FYI, in case you were not aware of it, "job creators" was a created phrase used to replace the terms rich or wealthy. Similar to "death tax" for inheritance tax, it is meant to make republicans feel good about allowing mulit-millionaires keep and maintain multi-generational wealth which they have not earned.
So, it looks like a two-horse race, but we're still in the paddock and ANYTHING can happen.
You have to love Ron Paul's amazingly dedicated and ardent supporters! If the election process was comprised of on-line voting and caucuses, he would be the republican nominee.
I can't stand it when candidates (for either party) deflect the question asked and deliver their own little off-topic soundbite. I hate it when the moderator let's them get away with it.
John Huntsman has a great barber and a great tailor. Newt is as rumpled as my old economics Prof. Together they poll at about 1%.
Rick Perry will begin to fall back to the pack after his "ponzi-scheme" line. Will it hurt him more to "walk it back" or stand by it?
Mitt Romney was the big winner last night. Solid and gaffe-free, his debate experience was evident and his contrast with Perry over SS marks him as the more "mainstream" and electable of the two.
Winner; Mitt
Loser; Michelle Bachmann
Funniest part is 6 liberal commentators on MSNBC "analyzing" the Republican candidates performances (and not doing a terrible job) ...Imagine watching a democratic debate reviewed by "Fox and Friends"...
I agree that MSNBC group was like the Soviet Politburo analyzing our congress. Down with all the capitalist pigs!!
You're not agreeing with what I said...I said that, considering, they didn't do a terrible job...
I said you got what you should expect from the socialist network.
You said "I agree"...what were you agreeing with?
That they didn't do a terrible job?
Both sides here toss around words that they don't seem to know the actual meaning of...
After watching the debate, I felt that Paul was the most inarticulate speaker of the bunch. He stammered so much, he wasted half of his allotted time humming and hawing. I really didn't get much information out of him.
Paul is a libertarian, not really a conservative/republican. Huntsman is probably in the wrong party.
If Ron Paul ran as libertarian he would win 8-15% of the popular vote in a general election, and considering the fervor of his supporters (many are oddly, former "Deaniacs") maybe that is a low-ball estimate...
Paul is, in fact, a Libertarian- pretty far out there, in terms of rigid ideology.
I doubt he will, ever, run as a third party candidate. He did not, last time, despite his opposition to McCain, and I doubt he will this time, either. He will do nothing to help Obama get reelected. Moreover, he wants an influence in the republican party- and has been successful, to some degree, in temepering the social issues.
I don't dosage with you about Huntsman, but he really has no place in the Democratic party today, either. The center has been driven from that party, as well. Thus, the "No Labels" subgroup of democrats no longer comfortable in their own party.
I don't think you're going to have an easy time this time out, dangerfield. I had my own problem a few years ago, during a gubernatorial election.
My choices were between a far right lunatic and a far left lunatic.
I voted everything BUT the top of the ticket- I refused to vote for either of them.
May be where you wind up. . .
You may be right...
But, I didn't say that Huntsman belongs in the Democratic party, just that he's in the wrong one. He's John Anderson 2012 IMO...
Paul has run as a libertarian in the past (86?) but you're probably right there too, although he world have more influence on the republican party as an "outsider" than he does as a fringe candidate within...
It's going to be a negative campaign whoever the republican nominee is, and I imagine many will be turned off by the rhetoric coming from both candidates. If ever the time was ripe for a VIABLE 3rd party challenge...
But there is none...
Except, dangerfield, he's not Anderson. He's already refused to run as a third party candidate- and, unlike Charlie Christ, I don't think his word is as good as a three dollar bill.
Then, too, there is the legacy of both Anderson and that nut from Texas, Perot. While Perot was in it for the self-aggrandizement, Anderson seemed completely surprised that his political career was over.
He fit in nowhere- something he had not counted on when "going for it".
Huntsman is not yet done with his career. He will seek an ambassadorship- perhaps to India, perhaps back in China- from the next administration. That can't happen if he burns his political bridges.
Democrats should have nominated Hillary. I don't think she's open to a draft, after what happened last time out.
It's going to be a rough election year for a lot of people.
Corporate taxes are lowest since the 1950's. Republicans, where are the jobs lower corporate taxes are supposed to create?
The wealthiest Americans have seen their incomes skyrocket over the past decade, but jobs took a nosedive. Republicans, why aren't these "job creators" creating the jobs you promised when we gave them their tax cuts?
The mainstream media supports Republican talking points, but the facts do not.
So if business owners are not going to create jobs in the private sector , who is? Is it the government? Oh, I forgot that we tried that twice and got very few jobs at the rate of $300,000 per jobs. Liberals would rather repeat the same failed stimulus five or six times costing us trillions rather than admit it is only business owners in the private sector who can create jobs.
Right ray: because federal dollars aren't real? Stimulis spending isn't real? Only right wing reactionaries keep repeating the same old lies about how if you just give corporate profits ANOTHER boost, maybe THEN that trickle down will start to trickle. Maybe this time......
Ray W. proclaimes: "So if business owners are not going to create jobs in the private sector , who is?"
===================================================================
No one is Ray, that's why businesses should not be coddled as if they were. The reason they supposedly are allowed to enjoy their tax loopholes and taxpayer subsidization is because they will hire American workers, they don't do that anymore Ray, so I say piss on them, make them pay the same taxes a working stiff does and take away all their government instituted perks, if they don't want to do what's right for this nation let the nations they are helping subsidize them, even you would think that fair, right Ray?
Small biz is not going to create jobs right now with the uncertainty that surrounds the 0bama regime. With 0bamacare not yet unconstitutional companies would be foolish to risk hiring more people. I haven't hired since 0bama came into office and will not until he is gone. Haven't had to fire anyone yet but we don't replace when someone leaves. Been in biz since '95 and the last 2 years have been the worst so far and this year is on track to be even worse. We are down to 65 people but we will get by so long as we get a new POTUS in Nov 2012.
Businesses will create jobs when their is sufficient evidence that they need more people to produce goods and services that more require more people. No one is going to create a job because the tax rate is lower. If you can't sell it, you don't make it. If you don't make it, you don't hire people.
If there is no profit to be made, there is no tax to be paid.
When enough Americans have enough income to pay doen their debt, including mortgages on under water homes, businesses will need to hire prople. Until then, we wait for the chicken/egg question to resolve itself.
black belt3, I ain't buying any of your post, you are an impostor. A change in the President is not going to miraculously change the mess we are in , Congress writes all the legislation, they are corporate owned today just like they will be after the 2012 election, so what's going to change for business, nothing.
w bush - since I am in the Healthcare biz - a change in POTUS will make a huge difference. If SCOTUS hasn't gotten rid of 0bamacare before then - the next POTUS will immediately. That will improve my biz instantly. When was the last time you walked into a Dr's office and noticed that they had added Dr's or nurses? If you did - you walked into one of the few.
How does a new President change any law himself or immediately? None of that is true in a Representative Democracy or a Republic. One Senator alone could stop that from happening.
Paul
According to Mittens last night at the debate, he simply issues an Executive Order. He has a FIRM grasp on the facts, no?
Black_Beltz3: This proves my point. Most businesses are not hiring now NOT because they are scared of Obamacare (what a stupid excuse), but because they want to make President Obama look bad when it comes to the employment rating each month. Someone told me this, and it really made me think! Hmmm, sounds reasonable to me. Obamacare is a GOOD thing...healthcare costs are going up EVERY year, and we have to stop it somehow. If everyone has to have insurance, it makes the pool larger, which makes costs go DOWN, not UP. Anyone with any type of a brain can figure that out pretty easy. And, if you can get people to purchase insurance, and help them with stipends, you and I (the taxpayers) won't have to pay our hard-earned taxpayer money to provide all that "free" medical care for those people who can't or won't get insurance, including illegals.
So, if you aren't hiring because you're afraid of Obamacare....your argument doesn't hold water!! From what you said, you're just waiting until a new president is in office, and hoping that it will be a Republican. Sorry, a Republican isn't going to halt rising healthcare costs that you will be charged by your current health insurance carrier....that will KEEP going up despite who's in office!
Businesses are not hiring because of a lack of demand in the economy, period.
We need a stimulus to put money into the economy to boost demand.
Then businesses will hire.
Basic economics.
Perry and/or Romney would be first strong Republican ticket since Reagan in my view. Not talking about politics, but just plain strength of candidates. Either or both of these guys would defeat Obama easily I would think.
The Republican dilemma
If Perry wins the nomination, Obama wins.
If Romney wins the nomination then there will be a third
Party candidate be it Paul, Palin or even Trump and Obama wins.
The real Democratic problem is that which ever one of guys who is the candidate, if the economy remains the same, the Republican candidate will win going away.
Dennis: You are absolutely correct. Well said.
Too early to tell, obviously. But on the surface Perry and Romney seem very "Presidential" regardless of political views. Other Republicans after Reagan didn't command authority, but these guys seem to have a bit of that Reagan calm under heat. Obama seems so in over his head to me at this point. I don't know if he can recover. Looking a lot like Carter to me.
Dennis;
Because I am the king of wishful thinking
I'll get over you I know I will
I'll pretend my ships not sinking
And I'll tell myself I'm over you
Because I'm the king of wishful thinking
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/newfoundglory/thekingofwishfulthinking.html
Nice scenario, but not likely...of course, a guy can HOPE...
If the economy stays as it is today, Obama will be a one term president. Even the democratic campaign experts agree with that point. So no matter what you think of the Republican candidates, if the economy is the same, one of them will be the next presidents. How do you think little known governors from Georgia and Arkansas became Presidents? When the economy or government are perceived to be going in the wrong direction. Voters make a change. It is a vote against the present administration more than a vote for the challenger. Look at history. This election will be a referendum on the Obama administration. I know Democrats want to turn it to anything else. But you can't get around the fact that the economy and unemployment are the #1 issue in this in this campaign. You can't seperate Obama's performance from this issue.
True Ray. The same reason George W. and Republicans were voted out last time. What's amazing though, is that Obama is only announcing his jobs program tonight. This was the reason he was elected and should have happened 3 years ago. Like him or not, it just seems like he doesn't "get it".
Ray W.
Then the goal for the GOP is clear...keep the economy from recovering.
...better yet, make it worse.
Grace House, this is going to be the same proposal as the one in 2009- with the exception of chiding congress for not passing free trade agreements he has not submitted.
He will ask for funds to send to states to keep union jobs. He will ask for a slush fund so he can repay his donors.
He will talk about "shovel ready" jobs- without actually using those words. An "investment bank"-
All because he believes we are too dumb to know it is the same recycled corruption- albeit, with a smaller price tag- from two years ago.
What I'd like to know is, how long is the media going to play along with his chiding congress for not taking up free trade agreements Obama has not submitted to congress for consideration?
Chuck, Mark, anybody?
“He will ask for funds to send to states to keep union jobs.” So No Joe believes that union jobs are of less value than other jobs. In her opinion nothing should be done to create any jobs if they are union jobs. SAD !!
Our President cannot send the trade bill to Congress unless he is sure it will pass because if it isn’t then the entire process of negotiations has to start over delaying the jobs that will be created for years.
Wow- that's some creative twisting of the facts, there, Dennis.
So, let's follow your logic- tell me, how can congress consider a treaty not submitted? Is he expecting them to pass it without reading it?
See, that was the hallmark of the last congress. Will not happen with this one.
Moreover, there's this pesky document that sort of stands in the way of that kind of consideration. If Obama wants the congress to consider the trade bills, he's going to have to submit them for consideration.
Period.
As to the funds to states to prop union workers- well, it's a value judgement. My own state is doing pretty well with fewer workers. Taxes are being held down- you know, the monies that pay those salaries and fringe benefits? See, when the federal money runs out, the locals have to make up the difference out of our own pockets, something we are pretty sick of doing.
On the other hand, it's pretty disgraceful, in my mind, to take taxpayer money and use it to buy votes- let alone attract campaign donations.
Keep your eye on the Solyndra investigation. Obama may be leaving office sooner than he-or you- anticipated.
Dennis - Good morning my friend. I have noticed that President Obama has asked congress in many of his speeches to pass the 3 free trade bills, but when his staff was questioned as to why the President has not submitted them to congress they looked very surprised. Congress cannot consider or vote on a Presidential trade bill unless it is submitted for review and voting by congressional members. If, as you say, President Obama can not submit the bills until he is sure they will pass then I guess they will never pass. IMO it's more about the unions who do not support the free trade bills.
As for the President requesting funds to give to the states to pay for teachers, first responders and other state employees, IMO the federal government is not required to bail out any state by protecting or saving public sector jobs. States, counties, cities and districts all have the means to raise revenue to take care of the needs of their citizens.
I believe the speech tonight will be nothing more than a campaign speech and little substance. It could have been submitted to congress in written form and the speech could have been given from the White House, this does not meet the criteria for a "Joint Session of Congress."
Hi Sarge,
All the key members of Congress know exactly what is in the Trade Agreements and a reading of “if there is enough votes for it to pass” can be determined. It is my belief that he has not sent the trade bill to them because the key members of Congress have told the WH that the votes aren’t there yet.
Hi Dennis - It appears to me that he would want to submit the Trade Agreements to congress and if they fail then he can at least campaign on the fact that congress stood in the way of creating thousands of jobs. However, I believe it is the democrats, backed by the labor unions, that will keep it from passing, not the republicans. The republicans have, in my memory, always been for Trade Agreements. Further I am not sure they will create the number of jobs cited by President Obama.
Have a good day and take care.
Sarge,
I believe it is most likely the Dems that are against the Trade Agreements because they want more pro-union or less anti-union language in the agreement.
But we need to move because the Canadians have already beaten us on one of the trade deals and are getting some of the jobs we should have received.
Dennis - I agree we need to move and if President Obama would submit it to congress I am sure it would pass the house, not sure about the democratic controlled senate. If President Obama is not going to submit it to congress for their action, then he (President Obama) should quit bringing it up in his campaign speeches as a jobs bill.
I loved the way Brian Williams and the other Bozo spewed the Democratic talking points leading into each and every question. They gave Romney and Perry all the time they needed to answer but they cut off all the other candidates at the 1:00 mark "per the rules". MSNBC is trying to select Obama's opponent for 2012.
I loved how Newt said he wasn't going to play that game of trashing the other candidates so MSNBC can get overjoyed from it.
Patrick, if you think the eventual GOP nominee is someone other than Romney or Perry you are sadly mistaken.
fyi
The facts are as follows:
"The NBC affiliate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, WTMJ TV announced yesterday they will not be airing Obama’s jobs speech at 7 PM EST Thursday night. instead they are opting for their own pre-game coverage of the Packers Saints game scheduled to kick off at 8 PM. Green Bay’s NBC affiliate, NBC 26, will also go with the Packers pre-game show over Obama."
However, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and all over the United States will carry the Presidents speech
I'll guarantee you that more people watched MSNBC last night than at any given 2 hr period in the network's history. That's got to really suck. The only time the Obama Network gets any viewers is when the people who are going to kick his azz out of office have a debate. LOL.
Again, these hack media organizations are trying to keep Ron Paul's name from the headlines despite the fact that he came in FIRST in MSNBC's own poll!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library
The graph shows Paul at 50%, Romney at 17.3%, and Perry at 14.4%.
How do they figure that Romney and Perry are the frontrunners?
Communism is alive and well and controls the government and the media in the US!
Oh give it a rest. Now the media is COMMUNIST?? Do you even hear yourself?? (gee, wonder why you're a Paul nut case).
Thanks...I'll keep that quote in mind next time I watch FOX News.
Seriously, TOR, it's great that 50% of those voting in that poll said Ron Paul won. How many of those voting in that poll are registered as something other than a Republican? How many of those who are registered Republicans really, in the end, don't care enough to vote in a primary or show up for a caucus? How many of those who responded will never get the chance to vote for Ron Paul because he will be done before Super Tuesday?
I don't think anyone can deny that the press is systematically making sure Mr. Pauls accomplishments are squelched. You are all missing TOR's point, the press should report the facts regardless of whether they agree with them, fit their narrative or whatever, and when it comes to Ron Paul it is astounding how all the biased cable networks come together to bury anything positive about him, it should be disturbing to all.
The GOP version of The Gong Show.
Obama in 2012.
The debate last night was a Hollywood make-over of 'Alice in Wonderland'
Huntsman was the only candidate that even resembled presidential material.
These are the choices that Republican voters have to choose from?
I like it!!! Obama 2012
Not this time. Obama is done. He has stolen, robbed, and lied his way to the White House. It is now time to put our country in order and it does not include him.
It sounds like you're talking specifically and only about the bush-idiot...
Other than that.... "yawn".
I saw that when Yahoo fired their CEO that the Yahoo stock went up 5%. If the election were held today and we replaced Obama then the enitre stockmarket would likely do the same. Optimism would be through the roof. Companies would likely start spending the hoards of cash they have put away and the economy would likely start to recover somewhat. Why can't we decide when elections are held? I hate the 4 years term limits and there should be lemon law after the first two years of a term.
Yeah, sure you felt that way when George Bush was president, right?
What a clown!
I guess the former CEO of Yahoo will be running for elected office vary soon. That's the kind of candidate the tea people GOP republicans like. A failed CEO.
G.C.....that's why I keep telling everyone that the ONLY reason corporations aren't hiring and are sitting on their profits is NOT because of Obamacare or regulations, it's because they want to make President Obama look bad so they can get their Republican "puppets" elected. I bet you're correct in saying that if President Obama is not re-elected, businesses wil start hiring like crazy....it makes sense! It has NOTHING to do with the economy being better, trust me!
Koch Bros
I see this daily, im curious as to why the DNC would ask the KOCH BROS for a five figure donation if they are so evil...
As Katt Williams says Dont worry ill wait....................
Why not ask the Koch brothers for money, all they can do is say no?
Just because the Koch money is evil, it can be spent for good electing a Democrat. But, why would, and I don't expect the Koch brothers to give the Democrats anything. Their goal is to destroy America, not save it.
The major reason I think Obama will be running against Perry is 55 million dollars. He has rich backers and are willing to spend all that money just to get the nomination.
I want to know where is the republicans complaining about all the good that 55 million could do for America as it is tons of money more than the 40 thousand they were so concerned about a couple weeks ago when President Obama spent some money for a vacation.
Interesting no faux rage over $55,000,000 and that money is just for winning the nomination.
Americans First - 3238795,
You're wondering about $55 M when Obama spent around $700 M in the 2008 campaign and has already received around $45 M in contributions.
great "analysis"Romney and Perry did not make it look like a 2 man race. the main stream media did.. by giving them more air time than anyone else! and millions of foolish americans will fall into the idea that those 2 are the front runners like the fools that they are.. if our own country as a majority can't wake up and smell the daisies to discern the best politician for the job of president in 2012. then we are screwed if we want to improve the U.S. of A. financially and for the better in general... if we keep down the path we have been on I'm leaving this country I can't stand it America was founded on rebelling from the English religious leaders and look at us now.. falling for our own Government
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. ~Winston Churchill
You blame the government as if it is some entity out of your control. It is the congress people passing the laws and creating our government. If you didn't like the downgrade or the hostage taking republicans plans, you vote them out of office.
Government is not this beast running wild. Every decision such as starting wars without raising taxes was voted upon by a member in congress. This huge debt was created by those votes. Republicans want you to think the government is the boogieman so you won't blame those republicans who votes actually brought us where we are today.