That way he will have one upped his daddy who was a flipper, too. Daddy couldn't get the nod cause of his flippin and a floppin - family trait.

I tryed to watch but began feeling ill. (It always happens when I hear Hannity speak)

Monetfan, that's another revealing the real Romney moment. Thanks for posting it.

If I was still a republican, I would be doing what they are doing--looking for anybody but Mitt. How could any person vote for a man just because he says he is a republican when they have no clue as to what his real policy stands are. He's a flim flam man. David Plouffe hit the nail on the head when he said, Romney has no core.

Funny Jody - seems more than a few dems are looking for an alternative to Obama.

Some calling to draft Hillary.

But all is well - Obama has a core, and now that the voters has identified it, he seems to be underwater in the poles.

Spanky, tough times for you guys.

With the economy this bad, and you guys through your own incompetence are now sweating it. It's hard to imagine an incumbent getting re-elected in this environment. But then none of us ever imagined a major party nominating race would turn out like this.

Not tough times Paul.

The GDP is going to keep going down. Inflation is already kicking up.

Add that to the fun of the DOE literally flushing money, Holders continued incompetence, and the over all dysfunction and you got yourself a 'vote 'em all out' mentality.

It's going to be a landslide. Just give it time - Obama's prefernce cascade just got going in earnest in August. By June it'll be a tidal wave.

Paul M: . But then none of us ever imagined a major party nominating race would turn out like this.

Turn out like what? How is this race different from any other race?

Paul M: and you guys through your own incompetence are now sweating it.

I think the people that are "sweating it" are the ones that have 1) Lost their jobs or 2) Think they'll soon lose their jobs. At some point these people and others look at the leadership of the country, at Obama, and ask themselves "Obama's purpose is what again?"

Don't blame Paul - he can't help it.

Libbies always try to jump the gun. They seem to have no ability to think long term or see the forest through the trees.

But then you got the Amy's of the world who actually believe the GOP controls congress. Not just the House, the whole thing.

Delusional. Funny as hell, but still kida sad.

Er, Spanky, which party filibusters every single thing in the sentate? Here's a hint, their leader's sole goal is to make the President a one term president. Even said it on the floor of the Senate.

Yep phinep, but didn't Reid have the ability to fix that and chose not to.

So why did he do that you suppose?

Oh and phinep - given this reality, why would you or any other libbie even bother to vote for a senator? They can't do anything anyway, according to you.

And as for their goal - looking like mission accomplished, right?

Why vote for any senator, using your logic? And, why didn't the GOP get rid of the filibuster when they had the chance. Pot/kettle

The only way I see to stop such lying is to change the slander and libeal laws so these things can be brought before a court and damages be payed

I don't know phine, but it is not the GOP crying about the filibuster now, is it?

Plus when was the last time the GOP had 60 votes? What were the issues, and was the president then able to get stuff done, unlike now?

Not that is matters to me - I have the two bestest senators around - Boxer and Finstien.

Progressive paradise, remember? Cali rocks, don't you know? In fact the latest revenue numbers came out- ugly. Massive layoffs are around the corner.

man team Blue is really good at budgeting, at least here.

"Do what it takes to get the nomination?" Sounds familiar. Spanky, if you think those two are good, you are completely lost.

Joanna - turn out like the absolute worst clown act I could ever imagine. Historical flubs, attack flubs, general bizarre, incomprehensible statements... heck, some of these guys even flub their own practiced talking points.

I really am sitting back in absolute awe at how badly these candidates are mangling this nomination race.

"Not tough times Paul.

The GDP is going to keep going down. Inflation is already kicking up."

So... you acknowledge the GOP is enjoying the economic downturn because it gains them political advantage. That's an unusual bit of candor.

Ah, then there's this gem from the Spankster:

"Don't blame Paul - he can't help it.

Libbies always try to jump the gun."

And I would be a "libbie" in your view exactly why? Oh, right, I dare to criticize Republicans. Must be liberal.

The funny thing is I'm probably more conservative than you are, Spanky. And, worse, I'm the one guy who actually knows what the word means, lol.

If I was still a republican, I would be doing what they are doing--looking for anybody but Mitt.

The sad irony is that they have no one that stands a chance but Mitt. The rest of the candidates are completely insane.

Paul M: really am sitting back in absolute awe at how badly these candidates are mangling this nomination race.

Perhaps your bias is showing just a little? Yes, I think so.

Maybe we should go back to the times of John Edwards (2008), who was bonking the groupies. Or maybe Howard Dean (2004) would be a good choice with his collision with reality and war-whoop in Iowa? Or perhaps we should focus attention on someone like Dennis Kucinich (2004) and his socialist rants. Or Carol Mosley Braun (2004), who did some seemingly illegal things.

And then there is Al Sharpton (2004) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjMZIC4DawM

And of course is AlGore (2000) who has turned his life into a total mess.

Take the blinders off Paul.

JoAnnaSmith - or we could talk about Newt screwing everybody in sight while he called for the ouster of Clinton; or we could talk about the bathroom toe tapper (can't even remember his name); or the list goes on and on. The GOP is just too dishonest to admit the illegality and disgusting behavior goes on in their party also. Oh but wait, Newt was screwing around because (and this is my favorite) he loves the United States so much! Please! Gag....

Spanky- Since the new Tpublicans took office in the House and Senate what is the Congressional approval rating at now...9% I believe? I know you must be addressing your fellows when you spout your stuff. It should be clear by now that No one trusts Republicans...no one!

Why is it that we pay a president to spend 25% of his presidency campaigning to get the job again?? He's had three years to campaign by actually getting something done. 2 years with a fillibuster proof margin in the senate. And what did he actually get done?

And really, tv ads?? What percent percentage of the voting sheep make their decisions based on tv ads? If there is anyone making a decision about who to vote for based on tv ads then I submit that they are not qualified to vote

JoAnnaSmith1

Turn out like what? How is this race different from any other race?

Thanks for the laugh. Most people think you should have a race that would nominate someone that could win. Not happening here.

As far as jobs go, everyone knows that the Party that was elected to created jobs in the last election has done nothing to create those jobs. That was a one time lie that will not work in the next election. Sorry.

They showed this ad last night on CBS news, and then actually what was said. They seem to be starting early during this election. They also showed a similar ad for Perry, that was also way out of context.

I just hope that the American people remember that the Supreme court has already ruled that campaign ads are exempt from the truth in advertising laws. These candidates can basically say just about anything about an opponent, and not a word of it be true. So be careful people. Do you really want an elected official of any kind, that was elected because of lies and deceit? If he lied about his or her opponent, what else have they lied about? These people will do anything to be elected. There is very big money out there for this election.

Ol doc, You act like their is no Democrats in Congress.....The Congress includes the Senate and the House which has Republicans and Democrats in it....The Senate Democrats have benched over twenty bills that would help the economy right now....Why would they put political ideology over whats best for Americans? I know the answer.

Spanky-

I don't know phine, but it is not the GOP crying about the filibuster now, is it?

Plus when was the last time the GOP had 60 votes?

You don't need to have 60 votes to block a vote with the filibuster and to literally take hostages on important legislation. All you need are the balls to hold out indefinitely without regard to the American people.

But I have to give it to the Republican machine. I've always complained that they think too short-term when in business settings... a "what's our stock today" mentality that leaves out the people equation and the long-term viability of a company... a "get my bonus" and run strategy. But I was wrong about long-term thinking.

When it comes to supporting the rich with less tax liability and outright giveaways, they have been the best long-term thinkers on earth...

Read this please. I know, it's The Rolling Stone... read it. best I've read in years...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

So wait, is Obama lumped in together with the GOP, since he signed and approved an extension of the Bush tax cuts for another two years... giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans? Hmmmm.....hypocrisy anyone?

Roanoke1.

So wait, is Obama lumped in together with the GOP, since he signed and approved an extension of the Bush tax cuts for another two years... giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans? Hmmmm.....hypocrisy anyone?

To the simple minded no nothings, sure.

But to anyone who was paying attention at the time, or now, no.

The reason being that extending the upper level tax cuts was the only way to get the GOP to vote for things like a payroll tax cut or extending unemployment insurance. Things that actually help a struggling economy.

Repulicants,

right, I knew all of this before, and I was sure the "it was the only way to get the GOP on board" excuse would be coming soon, and sure enough, you appear! How have you been, long time, no threads!

Look, you and the libtards can spin Obama extending the Bust tax cuts any way that you like, but the bottom line is that he did it. You can make excuses and give reasons for why it was done, but again, this is just justification for the fact that OBAMA extended tax cuts for the richest Americans for two years. That is hypocrisy, and was the point I was making in the first place. (and let's remember, Obama and the Dems had a supermajority for their first two years, so they never needed Republican support during that time, and yet they still failed to pass or implement a budget)

Oh, and I am not sure how extending unemployment insurance helps a struggling economy, as you claim. Extending unemployment insurance/benefits DRAINS the economy as it results in MORE spending on the unemployed... ( I am not saying that this was a bad decision, but lets be honest about what giving financial aid to the unemployed actually creates; not jobs, just larger deficits)

Oh, and I am not sure how extending unemployment insurance helps a struggling economy, as you claim.

Clearly you're "not sure" how the economy actually works. I'm banking there is a LOT you are "not sure" about.

Sally, again, I stated a rather objective reply. Handing out money to unemployed persons directly correlates with DRAINING the economy. Like I said, this is a form of SPENDING, and alot of spending actually. THIS DOES NOT AID A STRUGGLING ECONOMY, IT ONLY DEEPENS THE FINANCIAL HOLE. Good try, though. Please show me how giving money to people who dont have jobs directly correlates with IMPROVING our economy and national deficit...

Ron Paul 2012, the only truthful candidate. (Obama included)

Ron Paul is always truthful? Let's see how your assertion compares with the facts:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/sep/26/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-our-taxes-doubled-under-rick-perry/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/12/ron-paul/us-rep-ron-paul-says-countrys-bankrupt/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/10/ron-paul/ron-pau-ad-says-democrats-only-want-tax-increases/

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/oct/25/ron-paul/paul-herman-cain-called-federal-reserve-critics-ig/

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/sep/24/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-rick-perry-wrote-letter-supporting-h/

Always truthful and Ron Paul don't seem like a good match. Thanks for playing, though!

And, with a shot of a manufacturing worker, he says, he’ll “make America a job-creating machine like it has been in the past.”

What ?!?! The guy is either lying to us or is clueless (probably both). All our mfg jobs have gone overseas. There is no possible way to bring America back to the 1950's. Those labor jobs are long gone.

Roanoke.

Look, you and the libtards can spin Obama extending the Bust tax cuts any way that you like, but the bottom line is that he did it. You can make excuses and give reasons for why it was done, but again, this is just justification for the fact that OBAMA extended tax cuts for the richest Americans for two years. That is hypocrisy, and was the point I was making in the first place.

You, like many of the political neophytes cable news and the like have ignited over the last couple of years, have no understanding of politics, or how our government works.

No one is saying Obama did not extend the tax cuts for two years. He did. However, these facts remain:

1. Obama's position on the tax cuts is clear. Sometimes you cannot get everything you want. That does not make you a hypocrite.
2. The economic analysis shows and the consensus is, that those tax cuts do very little to help the economy. The reason being, the money from those cuts does not go back into the economy. Once one reaches a certain level of wealth, they spend a far lower percentage of their income, and thus, are not likely to spend the extra money from the cut.
3. Economists also find that extending unemployment insurance and payroll tax cuts help the economy tremendously, especially in a down or recovering economy.

Oh, and I am not sure how extending unemployment insurance helps a struggling economy, as you claim. Extending unemployment insurance/benefits DRAINS the economy as it results in MORE spending on the unemployed... ( I am not saying that this was a bad decision, but lets be honest about what giving financial aid to the unemployed actually creates; not jobs, just larger deficits)

You, as someone else pointed out, do not seem very sure of anything economic.

It is not I who claims. It is economists who claim. You know economists. The people who study the economy?

Study up, jr.

Repuke,

It is obvious that it is YOU who doesn't really understand basic logic and the American economy(though I've noticed that in EVERY single argument you take part in, that is one of the only things you say to other posters: you just don't understand the issue because I don't agree with your opinion). (Sigh). As I previously stated, taking more taxpayer dollars and handing it out to unemployed persons does NOT aid or fix a struggling economy. This is merely a quick fix, like a heroin addict. The unemployed will take their money and spend it, creating a quick infusion/uptick in the economy. But this would only last a short period of time, if that...and then our economy would be right back where it started...looking for it's next 'high.' Taking money and giving it to others, in it's most basic sense, DRAINS the economy, it does not create jobs or provide for any real economic stability, PLUS it adds to the deficit, because it is a type of spending...

You can't just make a blanket statement that 'economists' state that extending unemployment benefits is the way to go. I have seen economists argue both for and against the extension of unemployment benefits and the respective positive and negative aspects that the extension entails. Plus, following the lead of some of the economists that Obama has been listening to the last three years obviously hasn't been working out so well...(read Obama's economist Jared Bernstein's comments on the stimulus). Essentially, with the economy being so volatile and completely unpredictable, one can only know for sure after time has passed and it can be quantitatively analyzed to determine if the vowed results of such economic implementations were correct. Any economist that tells you that they know what is going to happen six months or a year from now is simply lying to you...We are left with the he said/she said in the very uncertain world of economic academia...

Finally, I think NewsBusters sums it up fairly well in short, concise paragraphs:

... Unemployment Insurance Prolongs Unemployment. One of the most thoroughly established results in labor economics is the effect of unemployment benefits on unemployed workers' behavior. Labor economists agree that extended unemployment benefits cause workers to remain unemployed longer than they otherwise would.

This occurs for obvious reasons: Workers respond to incentives. Unemployment benefits reduce the incentive and the pressure to find a new job by making it less costly to remain without work. Consequently workers with UI benefits look for new jobs less rigorously than do workers without them. The typical unemployed worker spends about 32 minutes a day looking for a new job. Workers eligible for UI benefits spend only 20 minutes a day looking for work during their 15th week of unemployment. They look much harder when their benefits are about to end, spending more than 70 minutes a day job hunting in the 26th week of unemployment.

... Since workers with unemployment benefits search less rigorously for work until their benefits are about to expire, it takes them longer to find new jobs. Labor economists estimate that extending the potential duration of unemployment benefits by 13 weeks increases the average amount of time workers on UI remain unemployed by two weeks.

This has economic consequences. Workers do not create economic wealth during the additional weeks they remain unemployed. They save and consume less because UI insurance replaces only a portion of their wages. Labor markets become less flexible because it takes more time for workers to transition from one industry or state to another. This hinders economic growth."

One word that is painfully and excruciatingly(for you) absent from your diatribe? JOBS. But sure, that makes sense, because you clearly cannot show a direct correlation between giving money to the unemployed, them finding a job(because the incentive is gone), and job creation or any real benefit to the economy other than a short infusion of taxpayer funded 'stimulus' into the economy. Good stuff, Brit, good stuff. Carry on with your ideology...

Roanoke.

Carry on with your ideology...

LOL!!! Call it ideology or whatever you want, jr.

The fact is, the economics support my position, which is why I hold it.

The only thing that supports your position is ideology.

So....carry on with your delusion, kid.

Roanoke.

You can't just make a blanket statement that 'economists' state that extending unemployment benefits is the way to go. I have seen economists argue both for and against the extension of unemployment benefits and the respective positive and negative aspects that the extension entails

I did not just make blanket statements. It is a well known economic reality, jr.

I realize you have heard the right wing hacks argue against extending unemployment benifits. You should stop listening to right wing hacks.

Plus, following the lead of some of the economists that Obama has been listening to the last three years obviously hasn't been working out so well...(read Obama's economist Jared Bernstein's comments on the stimulus

According to the economic analysis, jr, the stimulus helped the economy...and according to Jared Bernstein, it helped. In fact, Bernstein made the case that it should have been larger.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/obama-stimulus-recovery-act-jobs-unemployment_b_944674.html

Study up, jr.

Roanoke.

Finally, I think NewsBusters sums it up fairly well in short, concise paragraphs:

LOL!!!

Your ignorance is still forcing you to parrot (word for word) other peoples arguments, huh?

LOL!!!!

Study up, jr.

P.S. Newsbusters parroted that crap from Heritage. Are you going to attempt to argue Heritage is non-partisan today? LOL!!!

Repile,

I love how, AGAIN, you dispute absolutely NOTHING from my post. Newsbusters makes a WONDERFUL argument, an argument that is gleaned from economic study. Maybe you didn't read it, but this is just a way for you to deflect, because you obviously cannot debate ANY of the points that Newsbusters provided, points that HAVE been made by economists. So, you fail, as usual. Your only stand is that I used information from another source and quoted it in my post. You sir, are ridiculous, intellectually weak, and it shows.

On Bernstein, I noticed you didnt actually go back and read his comments about the stimulus, like I said. Here they are:

“Look, we made that projection back in 2008 at a time when the most recent information about the economy was that it was contracting at a rate of less than 1 percent,” Bernstein said. “At the time, we simply didn’t have good information. We now know with revised data that in the very quarter where we made that wrong projection, the economy was contracting at almost 9 percent.”

“So the statistics were way off at the time,” Bernstein continued. “It’s also the case that that forecast that we gave back then was the consensus forecast of the economics community. I mean, it wasn’t just that we were wrong. Everyone was wrong. And I think it’s largely because we just didn’t have a clear picture yet of how bad this recession actually was going to be.” So, there you go. He justifies their failure by saying that everyone else was wrong too, but I guess that's no reason not to throw $787 billion at the problem, huh? FAIL.

Oh, and as far as my own right wing delusional hacks that don't like extending unemployment benefits?? YOU FAIL. I guess Obama's top economic advisor is just a right wing hack huh? Alan Krueger ironically feels the same way about unemployment benefits not being a good thing for the economy. LOL!!! Nice try by simply pawning this line of thinking off on right wing hacks! You have simply shown that you are being blinded by your own delusional ideology, not objectivity. LOL!! Here is some more, for your reading pleasure (from Heritage, your fav):

"But according to a report by Heritage’s James Sherk and Karen A. Campbell, unemployment insurance actually leads to longer periods of unemployment and does not provide the promised stimulative effect. In their paper, they address a 2004 study which concluded that each dollar in additional unemployment insurance increased gross domestic product by $1.73. But, they say, that just isn’t so. Research shows that unemployment spending does not result in workers consuming more, and workers with extended unemployment insurance benefits remain unemployed longer. “A 13-week extension of unemployment benefits results in the average worker remaining unemployed for an additional two weeks,” they report."

"Funnily enough, President Obama’s new top economist agrees. Yesterday, the President announced that Princeton University economist Alan Krueger will replace Austan Goolsbee as the White House’s chief economic adviser. And though Krueger will play a prominent role in crafting the White House’s economic strategy, Heritage’s Lachlan Markay reports that Krueger’s past research doesn’t mesh with the White House’s stance on the supposed stimulative benefits of extending unemployment insurance."

And from Krueger's own paper: "For example, the labor supply literature deals mostly with adjustments in the number of hours worked, whereas the incentives of social insurance programs frequently affect the decision of whether to work at all.The empirical work on unemployment insurance (UI) and workers' compensation (WC) insurance finds that the programs tend to increase the length of time employees spend out of work. Most of the estimates of the elasticities of lost work time that incorporate both the incidence and duration of claims are close to 1.0 for unemployment insurance and between 0.5 and 1.0 for workers' compensation. These elasticities are substantially larger than the labor supply elasticities typically found for men in studies of the effects of wages or taxes on hours of work." REMEMBER, THIS IS FROM OBAMA'S TOP ECONOMIC ADVISOR!! LOL!!!

So, Republicants, as you can see, your party and administration is full of holes, contradictions, and blatant hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. LOL!!! You completely fail, as usual. Better study up, jr. I wonder what your excuse will be in your next response. I can't wait to hear this one... LOL!!

Oh, and, I noticed, again....still not one mention of the word "JOBS" huh, republicants? LOL!!! Sounds about right....

Roanoke.

I love how, AGAIN, you dispute absolutely NOTHING from my post. Newsbusters makes a WONDERFUL argument, an argument that is gleaned from economic study

LOL!!!

A couple of things parrot.

First, form your own opinion and then argument, and then use sources to support that argument. Parroting WORD for WORD someone elses argument only proves you are an ignorant hack.

Second. The argument is not gleened from any economic study, jr. It is copied and pasted from a Heritage Foundation article....that you then re-copeied and pasted. LOL!!!!

Roanoke the Parrot.

Maybe you didn't read it, ,

LOL!!! I read the blog you parroted that parroted from a Heritage article, jr.

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/11/20/aps-taylor-relays-tired-extending-unemployment-benefits-stimulates-econo

but this is just a way for you to deflect, because you obviously cannot debate ANY of the points that Newsbusters provided, points that HAVE been made by economists.

Deflect? LOL!!!!

No jr. I am merely pointing out that you are on a desperate search to "prove" the ignorant ideological and unsupported postions you were fed.

Newsbusters did not provide any points. The blog post you copied merely copied from a Heritage Foundation article. (At least, unlike you, they cited their sources with a link.)

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/extended-unemployment-insurance-no-economic-stimulus

So, you fail, as usual. Your only stand is that I used information from another source and quoted it in my post. You sir, are ridiculous, intellectually weak, and it shows.

No mental midget. You consistently fail to make your own arguments because you do not take the time to understand the issues, and are forced to desperately search for anything that supports the crap you were fed. This is why you end up with the weak sources you do.

The Heritage article does what all right wing hacks attempt to do when deflecting from the fact the economic analysis NEVER finds what their ideology preaches. They attempt to attack the methods and the entities that contridict their delusions.

Ever notice, jr, that instead of analysis, the right wing only produces excuses as to why that analysis never says what they want?

LOL!!! Probably not.

Roanoke the parrot.

On Bernstein, I noticed you didnt actually go back and read his comments about the stimulus, like I said. Here they are:

Did you read them, jr?

He didn't say anything about the stimulus there. He merely said no one knew how bad the recession really was in Dec. 2008.

Oh, and as far as my own right wing delusional hacks that don't like extending unemployment benefits?? YOU FAIL

Nope. There are plenty of right wing delusional hacks that don't like extending unemployment benifits. There are also others who will make nuanced arguments that you will misunderstand and attempt to use...but in reality, you only show your desperation and ignorance.

Sorry jr.

Not too mention, it is obvious. Cuttting off unemployment insurance when there are no jobs to turn to, removes capital from the economy. And when you remove capital from the economy, you hurt growth.

I realize that you are on a desperate search to prove what you already believe, but I will make an attempt to explain some things.

It is true, jr, that unemployment insurance can make people complacent. Studies have shown this, and it is fairly obvious human nature. However, that is irrelevant when there are not enough jobs.

Removing unemployment insurance when the economy is still fragile, only serves to remove capital. It does not motivate people to find jobs that do not exist because of the fragile economy.

Savy?

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

In your desperate attempts to prove the ideology you were fed, you ignore reality. You present an article from a right wing think tank that does not actually study the effects of stimulus or unemployment. It only attempts to discredit the methods used.

You then use a study by Alan Krueger that doesn't show what you think. The study does show that people will not look as hard for work if they are on unemployment. It does not, however, say anything about the economic benifits of the unemployment insurance, or the effects on a stuggling economy if you remove them.

The economic analysis still overwelmingly shows removing unemployment insurance in a fragile economy will hurt that economy.

Study up, jr.

Roanke the Ignorant.

So, Republicants, as you can see, your party and administration is full of holes, contradictions, and blatant hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. LOL!!! You completely fail, as usual. Better study up, jr. I wonder what your excuse will be in your next response. I can't wait to hear this one... LOL!!

LOL!!! Nope kid. Your flailing attempts to argue your ideology using random studies you do not understand, and repeatedly fail to cite, is evidence of your complete and utter failure.

No excuses, jr. Just, as usual, pointing out your desperation to prove an ideological position you were fed, but never bothered to research or understand.

Oh, and, I noticed, again....still not one mention of the word "JOBS" huh, republicants? LOL!!! Sounds about right....

Jobs.

LOL!!! What the hell are you talking about?

The fact that we went from losing over 750,000 jobs a month to two years of private sector job gains?

The fact that the economic analysis shows the policies of this adminsitration saved jobs, created jobs and raised the GDP?

Or the fact that nothing the GOP has presented has been found by any independant analysis to create any jobs?

Careful when you go up against Republicants, Roanoke. He uses solid facts, indisputable logic, moral imperatives, and just plain sense when making his point.

Repuke the ignorant liberal driveling mouthpiece,

Have you noticed, that in EVERY single rebuttal you make, whether it is to myself or other posters, your argument almost ALWAYS largely consists of telling others that they "just don't understand the issue, or they are delusional, or they were just spoon-fed their argument?" Seriously, this tactic TRULY shows how intellectually weak that you really are. YOU do not take the time to understand the issues, which is why your rebuttal is so weak and nearly completely devoid of any kind of objective research, statistics, or knowledge. Specifically, in this thread, you just make blanket statements about the economy as if they were truth, when they are certainly not. You only feel that the economists that prove your own inept ideological beliefs are legitimate. For instance, you piss and moan and have your period all over the place about my use of other sources. You see, instead of supplying the link, which most people will never follow, I actually take MORE time to cut and paste from links that show my own feelings on an issue. This forces the reader to ACTUALLY read what the link would say...Therefore, I am making it one step EASIER for the reader and I DID cite the source as NewsBusters, and I used quotations AND italics to show the words were not mine...SO STOP BITCHING about me using other sources to merely help form my argument. LOL!!!! Again, this is your only stand, to merely bitch that I copy and paste actual arguments from another source to back up what I am saying. How odd it is to see you attempt to make a stand against my doing so and ridiculing me for it, when you must simply have missed the MULTIPLE paragraphs above the cite in which I completely form my own argument, use my own words, and use my own analysis to contradict what you are attaching blanket statements to. So, it is painfully obvious that you are blinded from those paragraphs that are mine, because you cannot actually refute them. So, your only defense is to get vagina-burn over my copying, AND CITING, some of an argument to aid along in my rebuttal of your pathetic pseduo-intellectual tripe. As usual, YOU FAIL.

On Bernstein, I absolutely love how you attempt to pawn off his statements as if they had nothing to do with the stimulus because the word 'stimulus' was not in the comments I pasted for you. Well, junior, if you would actually go back and RESEARCH it yourself, you will see that Bernstein made these comments in an interview ABOUT THE STIMULUS and his comments were SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE STIMULUS. So, nice try with your obvious and consistent deflection tactics, but again, as usual, you FAIL. This is fun...it's almost as if you keep setting yourself up for me to slam! Love it.

Alan Kreuger...Hmmm...again, it seems that your ideology is deliberately blinding you to what was said in his empirically-based, quantitative analysis. Again, he said "whereas the incentives of social insurance programs frequently affect the decision of whether to work at all.The empirical work on unemployment insurance (UI) and workers' compensation (WC) insurance finds that the programs tend to increase the length of time employees spend out of work." So, again, this shows that handing out money to unemployed persons DOES NOT mean they will get a job any sooner, it actually delays them finding a job...meaning TAXYPAYERS ARE FORCED TO PAY MORE AND MORE UNTIL THEY DO FIND A JOB, THUS DRAINING THE ECONOMY. The reward for extending benefits is when the unemployed ACTUALLY find a job, thus creating paychecks and new funds that will undoubtedly be fed into the economy, plus the person is removed from taxpayer-forced payment on their benefits, thus freeing up more money and tailoring off the drain on the economy. This is not hard to understand (for most intelligent people). Simply handing out $1,000 checks to the unemployed, which you are obviously a fan of, does NOT aid the economy, it will only add nearly $40 billion onto the deficit. There will simply be a tiny uptick in the short-term, but then, like a drug addict, the economy will be left looking for it's next fix in no time (remember this argument, that I made several posts earlier, but you seemed to have glossed right over it and accuse me only of 'parroting'). LOL!!! FAIL, you silly liberal deflector, you. LOL!!!

More fun, since your own liberals like Kreuger and Bernstein aren't sinking in...how about Christina Romer, who was Obama's first Chairman of the Council for Economic Advisors. In a piece to the NY TIMES, she essentially lays out the fact that the stimulus was unnecessary. The plan that she helped create for Obama spent $825 in stimulus, to do what she says the Fed could have done (which would have come at NO cost to taxpayers). From Forbes "If we adjust the unemployment numbers to a labor force participation rate of 65.8%, which was the figure used by Romer and Bernstein, then we see that the unemployment rate actually peaked at the equivalent of 11.7% in July 2011. It was still 11.4% in September 2011, a shocking 73% higher than Romer and Bernstein forecasted for that month. The difference between the two unemployment numbers is equivalent to 7.5 million jobs."

Since the stimulus was passed, the nation has lost, in hard data, nearly 3 million jobs and the unemployment rate has remained over 8% for a POST WWII RECORD 31 STRAIGHT MONTHS. Now, if unemployment continues to remain over 8% into next year, which we all know it will (even the WH says it will), then this means that there quantitatively cannot be an argument that the stimulus has CREATED any new jobs, because the unemployment number would HAVE to drop below 8% for this to be the case. (you Dems and your statistical lies)

The CBO projects that the unemployment rate will REMAIN above 8% until at LEAST 2014. (CBO Warns of Profound Challenges, Politico 8/24/11). And now the economy is on the brink of a double-dip recession. ECRI Head Economist Lakshman Achuthan says "if you think this is a bad jobs economy, you haven't seen anything yet." Christina Romer again: "The risks have gone up for another recession compared to where we were six months ago." LOL!!! So, all that 'stimulus' didn't work. All of your numbers are just playthings dems use to attempt to make themselves feel better about wasting nearly a trillion dollars, funded by taxpayers. And finally, from Harvard Economics professor Martin Feldstein, "There is now a 50% chance that we could slide into a new recession. NOTHING has given us much growth." Comments made 8/2011, a long time after the stimulus was supposed to be really kicking in. So, you see, you and the dems are simply offering us more bull@!$%# in the form of stimulus, when the first stimulus appears to be a marked failure. You cannot argue that it has been that beneficial when unemployment is STILL above 9% and will stay there for YEARS. Remember Repuke, Obama has run up the deficit at TWICE the rate that GWB did. Jobless claims have still not gone down, DESPITE nearly a trillion in taxpayer funded 'stimulus.' FAIL. Study up, fool.

Oh, Repuke, I am not done mocking your liberal ignorance,

As for your comment "Or the fact that nothing the GOP has presented has been found by any independent analysis to create any jobs?" LOL!!! FAIL!!! As, usual, you need to study up, junior...

Hmmm, how about the 132 economists that have signed a statement, after comparing the GOP/Obama's Jobs Plans, saying that they CLEARLY FAVOR the GOPs jobs plan to Obama's??????? LOL!!!!! These economists are from some of the nation's top Universities and centers for economic study. They consist of economists from Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford's Hoover Institute, UVA, Notre Dame, Dartmouth, Cato Institute, Manhattan Institute, Loyola, Columbia (Obama's Alma mater), VMI, Cal State, George Washington, Georgetown, Washington University in St. Louis, Cal Poly, Emory, NYU, University of Illinois, Duquesne, Temple, Michigan St, Indiana University, N.C. State, and many, many more!! LOL!!! I guess all of these ECONOMIST's from ALL OF THESE prestigious universities are simply right-wing hacks, and you are simply smarter than them all!!! LOL!!! What a joke!!!! So, you see, your lying, blanket statement that economists do not favor or feel that the GOP's jobs plan is any good is just...a complete lie...which is what we are used to when reading your biased, partisan, uninformed, and unobjective drivel. One just has to do a bit of research to simply disprove your blatant lies. Remember repile, the half-truth is much more palatable and harder to discern than the outright lie, especially when spooned with the syrup of scholarly prose, which you do have, but you lack completely in logic, comprehension, and quantitative data. And remember, there are 22 jobs bills that have passed with BIPARTISAN support in the house, to only meet a dead end in the Dem-run Senate. And 132 economists have stated that the GOP jobs bills are better than Obama's, in both the NEAR TERM AND LONG TERM, so...it is the Dems who thwart our recovery (at least when listening to 132 independent economists from prestigious universities from all over the nation). LOL!!!!

Oh, and one final thing, because it's fun. I have noticed you constantly use the term 'savy' when you feel you have made a point(perpetuating your own stink), and you attempt to get all cute and witty by adding your little one-liner 'savy' with a question mark. Well, the next time you attempt to portray yourself as an intelligent guy with a witty little phrase, you might want to actually spell the word correctly. I have noticed that you spell it wrong EVERY time. The correct spelling is 'savvy.' So, try not to use words that you can't even spell (especially when you are attempting to use the word to relate how smart you are, LOL!)...it just shows how truly ignorant and uneducated you really are. LOL!!! Man, this is fun... Please write more so I can continue slamming you!! LOL!!!

Roanoke.

Have you noticed, that in EVERY single rebuttal you make, whether it is to myself or other posters, your argument almost ALWAYS largely consists of telling others that they "just don't understand the issue, or they are delusional, or they were just spoon-fed their argument?"

Followed or preceded by me showing exactly how you "just don't understand the issue, or they are delusional, or they were just spoon-fed their argument?"

LOL!!!

That is why you are so frustrated, jr.

Oh, Repuke, I am not done mocking your liberal ignorance,

You never even started to mock anything, kid. All you have done is make a complete fool of yourself.

Keep it up. This is fun.

Roanoke.

On Bernstein, I absolutely love how you attempt to pawn off his statements as if they had nothing to do with the stimulus because the word 'stimulus' was not in the comments I pasted for you. Well, junior, if you would actually go back and RESEARCH it yourself, you will see that Bernstein made these comments in an interview ABOUT THE STIMULUS and his comments were SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE STIMULUS. So, nice try with your obvious and consistent deflection tactics, but again, as usual, you FAIL.

Thank you for continuing to provide me with the opportunity to make fun of you, and to point out your ignorance.

His comments, jr, were not about the effects of the stimulus, only that the economy was contracting at a much higher rate then anyone thought at the time he made the statement about the projected effects of the stimulus on unemployment.

In your desperate attempt to justify the delusion you were fed, you lost sight of what you were attempting to argue. You attempted to this interview with Bernstein to show that, despite what the independent economic analysis shows, the stimulus did not help. Unfortunately, you did not actually read and comprehend what Bernstein said (maybe that is just out of your mental reach?).

Bernstein only said that the reason his original projections about the stimulus' effects on the unemployment rate were incorrect, largely because noone knew the full extent of the recession. The fact that unemployment was above 8% when the stimulus passeed is testement to that fact, jr.

Seriously. Study up. And this time, try and understand the material.

The interview, that you failed to source...again.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/economist-who-said-unemployment-wouldn-t-top-8-now-says-it-won-t-go-below-8-2012-ends

Roanoke the Mindless Parrot.

SO STOP BITCHING about me using other sources to merely help form my argument. LOL!!!! Again, this is your only stand, to merely bitch that I copy and paste actual arguments from another source to back up what I am saying.

I am mocking you for not knowing enough about the issues to make your own arguments, and having to copy and paste the arguments from a blog....that copied and pasted it's argument from a right wing think tank.

A think tank whose arguments didn't address the fact that there isn't any legitimate analysis that shows what the right wing ideology wants so desperately to believe, but instead attempts to discredit the independent analysis and the methods used....to avoid addressing the fact that:

NOTHING BACKS UP WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, AND YOU ARE REPEATING.

JR.

Roanoke the Dense.

Alan Kreuger...Hmmm...again, it seems that your ideology is deliberately blinding you to what was said in his empirically-based, quantitative analysis

LOL!!!

No, jr. Once again...

In your desperate attempt to preserve your spoon fed delusion, you lost sight of what you were trying to argue.

Your statement, jr:

Oh, and I am not sure how extending unemployment insurance helps a struggling economy, as you claim. Extending unemployment insurance/benefits DRAINS the economy

You then tried to justify these delusional comments with a study by Krueger that showed unemployment makes people less likely to look as hard for work.

While I do not disagree with that study, they say NOTHING about the effect of unemployment insurance on the economy. NOTHING.

The economic anlysis from a plethora of independent analysis, does. And that analysis, jr, shows unemployment insurance helps an economy. Always has, and always will.

Logic, jr, take a class.

Roanoke the Willfully Deluded. (Or maybe your really are this stupid?)

ince the stimulus was passed, the nation has lost, in hard data, nearly 3 million jobs and the unemployment rate has remained over 8% for a POST WWII RECORD 31 STRAIGHT MONTHS

A couple of things, jr.

The month Obama took office, we lost over 750,000 jobs. The month the stimulus passed, we lost over 500,000 jobs. In the following months, we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

However, by the end of that summer, we had stoppped losing jobs, and stated gaining them. In fact, we have had two years of private sector job gains.

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

The unemployment rate was above 8% the month the stimulus passed.

Study up jr....and take that logic class.

Roanoke the Ignorant.

Hmmm, how about the 132 economists that have signed a statement, after comparing the GOP/Obama's Jobs Plans, saying that they CLEARLY FAVOR the GOPs jobs plan to Obama's???????

BWHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAA!!!!!

You mean the list of 132 hand picked right wing economists put out by the Speaker of the House, John Boehner?

http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/Economists-11-8-11.pdf

LOL!!! Really? A list? No analysis. Not even quotes from these economists. Just a list? BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

You are a serious joke, dude.

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

Please provide the INDEPENDENT economic analysis that shows the GOP repackaged idological wish lists will do anything to help this economy.

Not partisan lists of economists, jr.

ANALYSIS.

Good luck ideolog.

Repile the mindless Obama-zombie,

HAHA!! This was a clear intellectual victory for me, as usual, you don't refute anything, just state that "I dont understand the issue" etc etc...basically the typical liberal deflecting tactic we ALWAYS get from you. And how strange of you to quote that when the stimulus was inacted, that unemployment was already over 8%. I rarely see this argument. Now, while in Feb 2009 alone, unemployment went from 7.1% to 8.1%, why would these amazing Obama-economists then project to the nation THAT UNEMPLOYMENT WOULD NOT GO OVER 8% IF WE PASSED THE STIMULUS (if unemployment was ALREADY over 8%?!?!?!?!) LOL!!! See how silly, counter-intuitive, and crazy your desperate attempt is, but it only proves your ignorance?

I also ABSOLUTELY KNEW you would DEFLECT, LIKE YOU ALWAYS do, in regards to the 132 economists. BWHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! I KNEW that would be your reply, BECAUSE THAT IS ALWAYS YOUR REPLY. "your info is biased, or partisan, or from right-wing hacks." See, that is the sign of a weak intellectual, which you prove over and over. You can't really debate any of the major points, so you name-call and deflect...and I love watching it, it's fun!! I guess ALL 132 ECONOMISTS from ALL these universities are just right wing hacks!!! LOL!!! (even though liberals ALWAYS argue that they control academia, so which is it Repile?) How pathetic of an argument can you make? All those crazy right wingers that teach at Harvard right ?(Obama's Harvard). All those looney right-wingers that run Columbia, right? (Obama's Columbia). All those wingnuts that reside at Stanford, right? All those conservative losers that teach at Emory, and NYU, and Notre Dame, right? HAHA!!! LOL!!! All those stupid economists that teach at UVA, right? LOL!! You simply make your typical blanket statment that ALL of these 132 economists are not independent because they show you for the liar that you are. You sir, are truly pathetic, and you completely fail, as usual. You can't simply dismiss 132 economists from our nations best schools with a dismissive flip of your hand because they dont say what you WANT them to say. LOL!!! What a loser!!! And ALL TWENTY-TWO bills that HAVE PASSED WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE are just failed bills that won't create jobs???? Really? Even though members of both parties, YOUR OWN PARTY, voted for them??? Even though 132 economists from elite universities back up these jobs bills????? Tell you what Repile, can you or the Dems provide a list of 132 economists, even hand-picked ones, that will back up what you CLAIM??? Nope, didnt think so. Better study up jr, I can see the steam rising off your head, its great!!

Oh, more fun. Yesterday Obama posted his lowest daily presidential job approval rating as president. No modern presidential incumbent has EVER won re-election with a job approval rating as low as Obama's. Good times, carry on with your goose-stepping...LOL!!!

Roanoke the impossible.

HAHA!! This was a clear intellectual victory for me, as usual, you don't refute anything,

LOL!!! See below.

And how strange of you to quote that when the stimulus was inacted, that unemployment was already over 8%. I rarely see this argument. Now, while in Feb 2009 alone, unemployment went from 7.1% to 8.1%, why would these amazing Obama-economists then project to the nation THAT UNEMPLOYMENT WOULD NOT GO OVER 8% IF WE PASSED THE STIMULUS (if unemployment was ALREADY over 8%?!?!?!?!)

Beause idiot.....

The 8% projection was made on Janurary 9 of 2009, and was based on data gathered in the month before.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

The stimulus passed on February 17th, 2009.

Unemployment for the month before is released the next month, since you have to wait until the month is over. So...in the begining of Jan 2009, they only knew the rate for December. And at the begining of Feb 2009, they only knew the rate for Jan.

Study up, kid.

LOL!!! See how silly, counter-intuitive, and crazy your desperate attempt is, but it only proves your ignorance?

Not really. But I do see how ignorant and uninformed you are, as well as the very limited state of your cognitive abilities.

Wow. LOL!!!

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb...

Ok, I'm digging this exchange. but it has occurred to me - do either of you have a job?I mean, where do you guys find the time? It's all good stuff, but geez, when do you guys eat? Or go to the bathroom?

But like I said, I'm enjoying the conversation. Especially the stuff like - "hahahahaha lololololol you intellectual insect. I can evaporize you just with my magnificent brain"... that kind of stuff rocks.

Roanoke the poster pathetically unable to defend the crap he was fed.

I also ABSOLUTELY KNEW you would DEFLECT, LIKE YOU ALWAYS do, in regards to the 132 economists.

Deflect?

LOL!!! Pointing out the list of econmists you provided is not INDEPENDENT or ANALYSIS is not deflecting, jr.

It was a list. Nothing more. And a list put out by the partisan GOP Speaker of the House.

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

So I will ask you again, jr, to back up the drivel you repeat.

It is very simple.

Do you, or do you not, have any INDEPENDENT economic analysis that shows the GOP repackaged ideological wish lists, will help the economy?

So far the answer is no.

Oh, more fun. Yesterday Obama posted his lowest daily presidential job approval rating as president. No modern presidential incumbent has EVER won re-election with a job approval rating as low as Obama's.

LOL!!! Talk about deflections....

Fubo.

- "hahahahaha lololololol you intellectual insect. I can evaporize you just with my magnificent brain"...

Careful....lest you get evaporized...

Truth be told, I am intrigued by the effect politics has on people, and their ability to think rationally. Much like a sports team obsession, but in many ways worse, to many, their ideology can do no wrong.

Add a few jabs, and mocking of the willful ignorance induced by the poster's chosen ideology, and you have a fascinating, and amusing, study of the psychological effects politics can have on an otherwise sane human being.

Roanoke is a particularly interesting poster....to say the least.

Lies and games in politics?

But only on the GOP side, right phinep?

Sure.

You really think people are only now getting this? What are you like 15years old?

I really wish I was 15 again. Lot's of fun growing up in the '60's. And yes, the GOP have always been masters of dirty tricks and lies. Wanna start with Watergate (throw a little Lee Atwater in the mix)?

Ah, Watergate.

So how does the existence of that in our history jive with you original statement? You know - where you said people are starting to catch on?

So what I did there phinep?

By the way I want to be 15 again as well.

Especially now that everyone will get free college tution. Man paying off student loans sucked.

We agree on that, Spanky. Had a party to celebrate when I paid off my college loans. Heard I had a good time (champagne can be a killer).

Alright so we both are heading back to college and hoping it'll be free.

And if it is - I am totally going to some ritzy private school, not the cheap state U. I went to to save money.

Spanky, from all your rants sounds like you got what you paid for. You have to be one of the most uptight narrow minded, no never mind you are a close second to Bob numbers.

So, are we talking history BEFORE the Dems voted and filibustered against he 1964 Civil Rights Bill, or AFTER...

Tis the Season - I don't think Spanky has ever seen the inside of a college or University in her/his life. And, there isn't one narrow minded enough to want to have Spanky go there. After all, higher education is just that - higher education.

Spankthemonkey,

Private ed about 50k in state about 25k no such thing as a student loan itis a parent loan. Next year I will have two in college, Georgetown and Swarthmore total expenses will excede 120k. I am fortunate that scholarships will lower it by a ton but that is not the case for most if loans are needed I must guarantee them with my home. Kids get out of college with over 100kin debt all the time and if they can't find work mom and dad are stuck for the loan. Half of the people who went to Villanova with me and have gone on to successful tax paying lives could never go there today because their parents could have never backed the loans. It is a large part of the reason the middle class is contracting wealth is now the over riding determination for private education.

jkh

phine...Can you put a sentence together that we can all understand concerning your love relationship with Obama and his ideology?

The lies and manipulations summarized below, Wow.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

Ok Spanky - College was free for many - after WWII there was a thing called the GI bill. Millions of returning military took advantage of the (well deserved) "government hand-out". It was one of the most successful government programs ever. An essentially free college education. The result - an economic boom as yet unseen in America. We became the industrial giant. We were graduating engineers, business leaders, doctors, etc. The 60's were a time of plenty because of it. The return to the economy was many times the investment. Imagine if 80% of those who had the capability to earn a college education actually did. Even if the government picked up the whole tab it would be returned in something we democrats like to call "the future". It's coming my friend and the one that you and your ilk are building is dark and bleak.

Politifact.com rates this comment by Romney a complete lie:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-said-if-we-keep-talking-abo/

they got the idea from the left

Sorry,mb6105. The masters of it are the GOP. They got it all on their very own.

Romney should be careful, he isn't the only one who can play this game.

Today Judd Legum and Jeff Spross from Think Progress have a rebutal ad up. It is truthful if you go by the Mitt Romney standard.

I urge all of you to hop over to Think Progress and check it out. It's pretty funny...

so where do I send my grandsons to get this FREE eduacation?

No, actually it was the left and libs. Take a look at how they proclaim to be the party of the common man. If that's not BS, I don't know what is.

Well Skiddy, I guess that depends on how you define the common man: if it's someone that fears a deity will strike him down unless he votes like his church tells him, thinks his neighbor is a lazy shiftless SOB because he doesn't think people should make a 7 figure salary for doing nothin, likes hiding what he does on saturday night and pretending it isn't being done and somehow believes a sixpack and a trailer next to a polluted river where he dumps the oil from his 10 mile a gallon truck are the best he deserves then yup, you are correct. The liberals do not represent the common man.

mb,

Have you been living in an alternate universe for the last 40 years or so. Have you ever heard of Donald Segretti, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Andrew Brietbart, James O'Keefe, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman. Please give me the corresponding list of Dems starting in 1968.

jkh

Mitt Romney is Lloyd Dobler (re: Say Anything); I'm shocked that no one's made a poster of him wearing a long coat, holding a boombox over his head while he tries to sway his girl (the nation).

LOL nisl, that is hysterical. Hope Think Progress runs that on TV

drug cartels? terrorists? really? We need you to come forward with all the info and sources you have so we can start prosecuting Him. as these are definitely felonies.

Are You REALLY That STUPID??

yes he is that stupid....

gpotts why he is only doing what Mitt is doing

Paid Fee

Assume you include fair and balanced Fox in your list of networks in President Obama's pocket.

PaidmyFee- the very best Republicans are still bottom feeders who tout religion (but are the least Christian bunch I've ever seen); want total control over what everyone thinks and does; want to relegate women to 2nd class citizens; want to take this country back to the 1700's; etc. What a pathetic lot.

Come on.. Obama only needed 900+million to win the first election.. He doesn't need to take any money from terrorists, he has enough supporters to pay back with favors already. I guess he better hope to get re-elected, a LOT of people spent a LOT of money getting him into office, and he certainly hasn't been able to push their agendas like he thought he could.. I imagine a few of those big contributors will not be happy if he gets ousted before making good on his promises.. He might be pulling a Bill&Hillary and stealing everything on his way out of the whitehouse if he doesn't get re-elected - just to pay off his supporters lol..

Or pull a Bush and steal the whole darn election! twice!!

If democrats "respect" women, explain their treatment of Sarah Palin?

If democrats "respect" african-Americans explain their lynching of Herman Cain.

You demand we teach 3rd graders about homosexual sex, but scream when they say the Pledge of Allegiance? Really?

You disrespect veterans every chance you get, demand legalized drugs, refuse to pay your student loans, demand the government repay your lousy home loan, insist someone else pay your health care costs, blame oil companies for gas prices and refuse to let them drill in America, blame farmers for high food prices and refuse to let them farm and believe "rich people" should be forced to pay for your inability to control your spending habits.

Mr. 57 states is a lousy president,without a tele-prompter to tell him what he thinks he is not quite as smart as a manniquin. Without the full support of a massive left wing media machine proclaiming him and the tele-prompter to be one and the same,,,,,,,,,,,,,he would be selling shoes at the mall.

Hang on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I see a Navy corpse man.

LOL

Is the Navy Corpse man wearing a crisp white coat?

Wow, where is the school where they hold a class for 3rd graders on being homosexual? If you weren't so pathetically pitiful you'd be funny paidmyfee.

Sally,

Again, please study up before posting. THE ENTIRE STATE of California recently passed a bill requiring all public schools in the state to teach LGBT history in history and social studies classes, in grades K-12... This is teaching an agenda, not teaching....

As long as the comedy team of the GOP Pretenders to the Candidacy are on the road with their rollicking antics occupying the national media, I doubt anything will be a real problem for Obama.

And, some we don't need.

We'll also get rid of the Bush tax cuts and return to the Clinton era rates, increasing revenue.

What makes you think President Obama didn't plan it that way UAW? One thing the right always and the media often fails to understand is that President Obama is 10 steps ahead of them. The GOP walked away three times from deficit and debt reductions plans because their Pledge to Grover superceded their Oath to the Constitution and their ability to think rationally. It was obvious that when they walked away those 3 times, they had no intention of ever compromising on increasing revenues and President Obama knew that. The GOP painted themselves into a corner once again and all our President had to do was hand them the brushes and the paint. Our military budget has trippled since 1999--what better way to slash it than to agree to a Super Committee that clearly would never find common ground. Common ground was unattainable when the 13th member of the Committee was Grover Norquist. Liberal spin? Nope, just look at what took place since February 2010; it's easy to connect the dots when one looks at the pattern.

Jody,

Don't forget this also buys gridlock until Mr. 10 Steps ahead can step out of the office in 2012 w/o signing any more ridiculous legislation. I think your confusing the pledge to Grover. What were really talking about is a pledge to common sense. You have to admit America lost it's compass regarding what the citizens want and what they got in 2008. Thankfully that was partially corrected in 2010.....

I just wish he take a step over in front of the GDP and do something about it.

Jody's ever increasing list of boogey-men - Rove, Koch, Walker, Norquist.

Of course I bet Jody pays less than $250k in taxes. Hell I bet she pays less than $25k in taxes a year.

See Jody when people pay in excess of 10 times what you pay, they tend to have a slightly different outlook about taxes, and just about everything else.

But I bet Jody does not spend more than she makes. Right Jody? Of course you don't.

Jody Iowa: What makes you think President Obama didn't plan it that way UAW? One thing the right always and the media often fails to understand is that President Obama is 10 steps ahead of them.

Now Jody is doing comedy. In the delusional world of Lil'Miss 10 Steps, Obama is smart, brave, competent, and the smartest guy in the room.

In reality he hasn't solved one economic problem and has created a dozen more.

Kook-aide drinkers like Jody though worship Obama. It's their substitute for religion.

For the party of 'taking responsibility', the conservatives sure like to blame everyone but themselves for all the problems we have. They are, after all, the party of the religious right - which means they are infallible, except when they have to change the wording in their prayers or when they have (no less than) 3 candidates who are running because of a personal conversation with God (2, probably 3, of them are going to be disappointed and wonder why God lied to them).

Over the last 4 decades, there has been 5 repub presidents and 2 dem presidents not including Obama), repubs had the office for 28 years while the dems had the office for 12 years. Refer to this link for the data on debt to GDP ratios:
Debt grew (significantly) under the repubs while it was level, or even decreased, under the dems. Pretty damaging data against the party of NO and the party that insists the dems are to blame for every bad thing that's happened over the last 4 decades.

Obama was handed a rotting corpse for an debt ridden economy already in a recession, two wars, and a conservative base that woke up and became an energized tea party focused on the (republican) debt and whipped into a frenzy by repub leadership that declared their intentions to make Obama a one term president before he had served a single day.

During GWB's 6 years of full control (white house and congress) we started 2 unfunded wars, enacted an unfunded medicare prescription program, and had 2 tax cuts (not at all like Reagans tax reform). We've had 30+ years of experience showing us that trickle down economics does not work, but repubs want us to go further down that road.

Obama needs to VETO every budget package that does not contain 98% of what he wants. VETO any attempt to modify the debt reduction agreement and make sure it happens. VETO any attempt to further extend the Bush tax cuts. Demand legislation to close corporate tax loopholes in exchange for bringing the 'lost 15' bills to a vote.

We heard from someone who was there that the Super Committee was a loser from jump street because the Republicans said they would never give Obama a victory so if he interjected himself in the process they would never agree to any proposal that has his approval.

What a bunch of slimeballs, out there now saying the President was AWOL during the process. Well, yeah a$$hole$. You made it clear you would not give the President a victory.

Contrary to what some of you may think, he is a smart man!

So Sheila, you HEARD so it must be true? I hear a lot of things and I don't think what you mentioned was one of them.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you about Obama being smart, for myself I don't like his policies and I've stated that when he was running for office. But to call someone an a-hole based on hearsay is petty.

Spanky,

Perhaps she is one of those who pay no taxes and still receives a return.

What Sheila heard was a fact Paul. Nice try though

True about Evangelicals - They talk about everyone else but themselves. I am married to one and go to their church every once in a while. They say " We cannot be like everyone else doing wrong and talk bad about other people, we have to be an example.." and so on. I know people can't ever be perfect, but they can at least try to reach perfection. To some, when they read or someone tells them to try to be perfect they react by saying : " O! no hahahahaha, you are crazy " . So they do what they want. They go to church every sunday, they are nice or try to be nice to their fellow members when they know they are members, but if you are not. Do not expect the same.

Ever since Bush looked us in the eye and lied about Iraq, it has goven Republicans and Bankers permission to lie without guilt.

To hear Republicans defend Romney demonstrates these people lie and expect the ignorant masss to believe them. And we do.

See: Leo Strause and the Philosophy of deception.

Mitt's tactic of hollowing out a company by loading up on debt, looting the cash by calling it "management fees" and dumping the carcass by the side of the road was legal. That is the only test Mitt has to pass. Moral does not enter into his thought process.

His only regret was not that he bankrupted the company, it was that he had to pay some tax on his windfall.

Are you a U.S. citizen? Your English is terrible.

if he is, he should read keynes again and try to understand it. Is he a supporter of friedman economics? Does he realize that TAP, fannie/freddie etc happened while obama was Jr. Senator from ILL.? I doubt it!!!

JG - Well if you bold type it it must be true! What a totally ignorant rant you just posted. Filled with the usual GOP/Tea Party lies and nonsense.

Pretty weak talking points today, JC. Did Rove leave early for the Holiday? No Turd Blossom in Training Brownie Button for you today! (chin up - you'll smell better without it).

You do realize that repeating lies makes you a liar and that posting garbage that is completely irrelevant to the conversation makes you appear ... well ... creepy at best.

True...but this is a step beyond the "negative ad," declining further down the slippery slope.

A "negative ad" simply attacks one's opponent over differences in policies, rather than limiting one's advertising to promoting one's own policies.

A step further down that slope, would be a negative ad that goes beyond an attack limited to policy differences, which attacks one's opponent on the basis of some personality trait or flaw...i.e. a personal attack.

But this goes beyond BOTH, in quoting one's opponent out of context to imply that opponent has said or believes in something totally foreign to what had actually been said, given the total context.

That becomes more than a negative ad; it becomes a lie.

That's very similar to the Perry ad claiming Obama called "all Americans lazy," when he said "we've been lazy" about not doing enough to promote the advantages of U.S. investment to foreigners.

Elections have always revolved around manipulating reality to a degree but the way things have taken a quantum leap this time says more about our societies relation to truth and how quickly we are being conditioned to treat it as a lesser priority.

Things have become so polarized and the with a bad economy the stakes are raised for all of us; people on both sides are willing to settle for their side doing whatever it takes to win. If you polled you might be surprised how many people would say they were comfortable with their side lying to achieve their goals.

Ah...I like to think - right or wrong - that there is some reasonable relationship between "truth" and the ability of one to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Don't really understand how we can arrive at meaningful solutions to problems without at least an approximation of truth based on reality.

You would have to ask Karl Rove about ethics in running a campaign. He threw them all out the window, and now everyone is doing it because it got GWB elected - twice.

Sound bites over facts.

Catchy phrases over substance.

It's the republican campaign tactic of choice.

What campaign tactic did John Edwards use to keep his infidelity and child out of wedlock a secret for so long??

blearyeyed - Karl Rove has the integrity of a slimy snake. And, if we are all lucky he will crawl back under a rock so we don't have to be faced with his lies and disgraceful tactics. But, that is what the GOP is counting on to win because they can't win with facts.

I think using what Mr. Obama said was a play on words...I haven't actually seen the ad so cannot say with certainty. It's taking what someone says, and not actually twisting what they say, but rather build on it to make a point. It's not a lie but rather (again) a play on words. Was this taken out of context? If it is said to be factual, yes. But if it is eluding to the current economic state and whether it is pass or fail, then they are just using it as a talking point to the state of the economy and it's failure. Someone mentioned "sound bite"...I think that also would summarize this type of use. This is just my observation. All I know is we have got to come to grips with the reality we all face and really come up with solutions...and...get out of the fantasy.

Oh please, Roanoke, Edwards infidelity has nothing to do with his politics, or ability to lead a country. And to be fair, I'll say the same thing about all the sexual BS played out on the GOP side as well. I really don't care about our politicians' private lives. They can do what they want, imho, as long as they run the country in a reasonable fashion.

We're talking about a leading contender on the right who has deliberately mis-quoted Obama in order to discredit him. THAT is lying, and it serves no purpose in politics. Stay on topic next time, or get off this forum if you can't be bothered to post mature arguments....

An interesting pattern. Republicans sink to a new low and then send their minions out saying "It's just politics. Everyone does it." Then they sink lower and send the minions out again. Every time they lower the bar, they are only competing with themselves as to how disgusting they can be.

Mitt should be very, very ashamed of himself. Like it or not, he really is somewhat of an ambassador for the Mormon church. He can declare up and down that Mormons really are christians, but when he takes this big of a bowel movement on that pesky little commandment concerning the "bearing of false witness" he not only shames himself and his family, but he also shames the entire Mormon church. It's hard enough for the Mormons to counteract all of the lies told about them - how are they supposed to defend the fact that the current mort visible Mormon is a big liar???

Shocked,

You have quite the warped view of what constitutes character and whether or not this matters when electing the most powerful man in the world. You hypocritically point out that Romney 'lied' on this ad, but then give Edwards a complete pass for LYING to his own wife, family, and constituents for over a year. Then he lied to himself and claimed the kid wasn't his, until he had to give it up and admit it. How would you like to be that child, and have to grow up with this story knowing you were just a love-child that no one wanted, and that your own father disowned you and lied about you for the sake OF POLITICS. And none of that matters to you in determining the character "of a leading contender?" How incredibly partisan of you to give this sweeping pass to Edwards and those of his ilk (on both sides), but then excoriate Romney for the same thing...LYING. You are so biased you can't even see your own hypocrisy when you are writing out the words...

INDYPATRIOT, the above paragraph is for you. (Sorry SHOCKED, even though I could have had some fun with your post, too,)

Roanoke...this may come as a surprise to you, but this article is about Mitt Romney.

I, for one, absolutely adored Elizabeth Edwards - not because of her politics, but because she was a beautiful woman. I never trusted John Edwards (too many teeth...like a used car salesman) and was VERY disappointed when John Kerry chose him as a running mate (not that John Kerry was a gem...).

I have yet to meet a Democrat that isn't completely disgusted with John Edwards. Can you look at his life now and claim that he got a free pass???

Can you, at least, agree, given the flack Romney has received about being Mormon (being called a cult member???), that it would be wise for him to hold himself to a higher standard?

Interesting point.

Human self-justification is capable of some amazing contortions, especially when trying to reconcile fairy tales with reality...and often results in excessive reliance on "the letter of the law" as opposed to its spirit.

The "super committee" was based on an agreement between the White House, the Democrats in Congress, and Republicans in Congress, in order to get an agreement on raising the debt ceiling limit. You may blame John Boehner as much as Obama.

Further, Obama didn't "pick" the members of the Committee. The Congressional Democratic and Republican leadership did.

If it wasnt for solyndra a huge swath of backwards americans wouldnt even know about solar power

...and obama didnt choose the super committee, we are not anywhere near a path towards socialism

-stop getting your stories pre-assembled by right wing propagandists. Hearing these kind of mis-truths from grown people is pathetic. Theres only one way to get it this wrong, considering the information thats available to us all and thats by buying into someone elses interpretation of it hook, line and sinker.

Really enough? So based on what you said, it was great to piss away $535 million dollars for a company that the Government knew was going to fail? Send me a couple of hundred dollars and I'll tell you the sun is hot. For a couple hundred more I'll tell you that heat is energy........................

"If it wasnt for solyndra a huge swath of backwards americans wouldnt even know about solar power"

I strongly believe that if the Mormon church does not immediately stand up and chastise their most visible member for diliberately spitting on their core beliefs, then they deserve to be considered deceitful liars right along with him.

Shame on Romney, shame on his family for approving of his deceit and shame on his church for keeping him.

Chuck,

I think you fail that course Chuck. So according to fackcheck.org Bush in 8 years ran up almost 5 trillion and Obama almost did the same in 3 years.

"the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency."

www.factcheck.org

Paul you forgot the main part. That Bush carried the war off the books. (think Enron) He did it so the debt increase would not show during his term. Just so the very lie you are telling here Paul can be repeated.

President Obama thinking that this was not honest to carry that kind of debt off the books had it added to the debt making it look like in your fact check that all the debt added was the debt of President Obama instead of the large amount that got added was actually Bush's debt from the war.

It is a popular lie that republicans have no problem repeating over and over even after they know the truth. So Romney's lying ad, no surprise republicans love to lie, right Paul?

I guess the big question is if Paul and those like him are that easily duped, or if their hate is just so all consuming that telling lies seems justified...

Care to enlighten us as to which it is, Paul?.....Paul?......Hello?........

Check out Matt Rhoades -- he did opposition research for Bush/Cheney in 2004....and probably is the person who told Gov. Romney he could "legally" destroy all his records as governor.

We need President Obama in 2012.

We don't need to kill America for the rich, which is the plan of all the republicans running for president.

Are you worried about the 1%? Do you feel the need to steal social security from yourself to give more tax cuts to the rich? The republicans are looking for suckers, I mean loyal Americans like yourself.

STUPID