Gas Prices:

In southern Indiana gas prices jumped twice this week; first time a quarter and the second time an additional dime. Prognosticators say the prices could go over $5.00 per gallon. I confess that four years ago, in my zeal to elect candidate Obama I blamed President Bush. I was wrong about that. President Bush didn't cause the gas prices to increase. He didn't do it. He didn't do much of anything for that matter… except get us into a costly war.

Then and now it is the Wall Street speculators who bear the burden of guilt. They are betting gas prices will go up in the future and the increase becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The underlying reason for the speculation has to do with Iran and to some degree, Syria. The Middle East continues to be a powder keg and the disruption of oil flow is a very real threat.

Some see the keystone pipeline as the solution, but it will take years for that pipeline to be operational. Others point to alternative energy sources, but that too will take years to implement and not a solution for our current dilemma. Those who say they have a short term solution are lying.

Oil, or the lack thereof, is the focal point of both foreign and domestic policy. We have limited control of what happens in other parts of the world, but we can manage what we do at home. Rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our power grid, creating alternative energy sources, and improving education are issues that need to be addressed. Instead, Republicans are more interested in cutting government services, limiting gay rights, punishing illegal immigrants, passing anti-Muslim bills, marginalizing unions, giving tax breaks to the wealthy and increasing taxes on the middle class.

How petty when there are big problems that need to be addressed!

Looks like the decent jobs reports in the last two months may have been just a blip rather than a trend towards an improving economy. The Commerce Depts January durable goods report is horrible, and points towards a slowing economy, not a growing economy. And if the economy is slowing down from an already pathetically anemic slow-bama recovery pace of 2% or less, America could easily fall back into a double dip recession. The jobs report that comes out a week from Friday will be very interesting, as will the next couple of month’s reports.

From CNBC.com:

Durable Goods Demand Falls Most in 3 Years; Down 4%

New orders for U.S. manufactured goods fell in January by the most in three years as demand fell across the board from machinery to aircraft, suggesting the economy started the year on weaker footing than expected.

Durable goods orders dropped 4.0 percent, the biggest drop since January 2009 when the country was still mired in a deep recession, according to Commerce Department data on Tuesday.

Economists had forecast orders falling 1.0 percent.

Durable goods range from toasters to big-ticket items like aircraft which are meant to last three years and more.

Excluding transportation, orders fell 3.2 percent. Economists had expected that reading to be flat. Machinery orders dropped 10.4 percent, the largest decline since January 2009.

Non-defense capital goods orders excluding aircraft, a closely watched proxy for future business investment, fell 4.5 percent, the steepest drop in a year.

A 6.1 percent drop in bookings for transportation equipment - including a 19 percent fall in civilian aircraft orders - dragged on the overall reading for durable goods.

Romney yesterday made his final pitch to Michigan voters with a special appearance by Kid Rock

Did more than a dozen people show up this time?

Willard is quite the 'crowd' magnet! lol

In southern Indiana gas prices jumped twice this week; first time a quarter and the second time an additional dime. Prognosticators say the prices could go over $5.00 per gallon. I confess that four years ago, in my zeal to elect candidate Obama I blamed President Bush. I was wrong about that. President Bush didn't cause the gas prices to increase. He didn't do it.

____________________________________________________________

This is the reason I love MSDNC and FR: The oblivious, unintended, comedy they consistently produce!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard Nixon and the veterans of his 1972 Presidential campaign dirty tricks squad would be proud. What’s next, an Obama campaign team of burglars breaking into Romney national headquarters to try to steal campaign strategy and planning documents??

Democratic mischief in Michigan

Posted by

CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash and Prodcer Eric Marrapodi

Washington (CNN) - It's no secret that most Democratic strategists consider Mitt Romney the GOP contender who poses the biggest threat to President Obama. It's also no secret that Michigan, the state where Romney grew up, is a must win for him.

Combine those two dynamics, add in the fact that any registered voter is allowed to vote in Michigan's open primary, and you get a recipe for Democrats to make mischief.

Michigan Democratic strategist Joe DiSano has taken it upon himself to become a leading mischief maker.

DiSano says he targeted nearly 50,000 Democratic voters in Michigan through email and a robo call to their homes, asking them to go to the polls Tuesday to vote for Rick Santorum in attempt to hurt Romney.

"Democrats can get in there and cause havoc for Romney all the way to the Republican convention," DiSano told CNN.

"If we can help set that fire in Michigan, we have a responsibility to do so," he said.

David: My thanks for your service, and Jack, you as well. I consider both of you to be fine writers and contributors to FR, as well as friends. I don't read what damage writes, I would shame him for it, but there are those who cannot feel shame. I suspect he is one.

He owes an apology to the two of you, as well as all who served. But, that requires class. One cannot ask that of the classless.

Keep writing, David, you and Jack are important voices on FR.

Joe in Albany

Dennis: I confess that four years ago, in my zeal to elect candidate Obama I blamed President Bush. I was wrong about that. President Bush didn't cause the gas prices to increase. He didn't do it.

____________________________________________________________

JiA: This is the reason I love MSDNC and FR: The oblivious, unintended, comedy they consistently produce!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How quick the Left gives up their beliefs and their dignity just to support the failure in the White House.

Recall back when Bush was President and gas prices were rising, the Democratic leadership was all over Bush for his "failure". The cable news networks led with the news every night and crassly demanded what Bush was doing about it. Polls were taken showing that Americans were disappointed in how Bush was handling the crisis. Panels of political pundits were put up on CNN discussing Bush's failure of leadership, his alleged connections with Saudi's, and him being an oilman interested in profits for his friends. Yeah, Bush was to blame for the price of fuel.

Now we get the Libs recanting, turning on their own statements, their beliefs, and their hatred for everything Bush, all so they can continue their love-fest with Obama. It is amusing to observe their behavior.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

We must ensure this unemployed narcissist remains ‘out of work’!

Let Willard continue to live off of his Cayman Island & Swiss piggy bank(S) and allow President Obama the opportunity to continue cleaning up the mess left by the last GNOP President!

YES WE CAN! Obama/Biden 2012

Feisty,

Willard Mitt Romney fascination with trees, Cadillacs, and his rich NASCAR friends instead of everyday people the economy and jobs pretty much assures he won't get the nomination.

Americans care about the economy, not social issues

The reason Republicans have tried to move away from the economy is because it's moving in the right direction, and that is bad news for the Republican party. With an unemployment rate that has dropped for five straight months, and over 3 millions jobs being created in 23 straight months, Americans are starting to see the economy being corrected. While Republicans have tried to put the focus on social issues, Americans are not buying it.

Continue reading on Examiner.com New Poll: Americans care about the economy, not social issues - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-orlando/new-poll-americans-care-about-the-economy-not-social-issues#ixzz1nfgUfgjw

=========================================================
Why can't the righties see that?

☺

The leather jacket Flip wore last week to taught the Olympics was worth about $5000.00. It was just a throw-away for him that he can break out every now and then.

Yes we will.

David -- Thanks for saying what needed to be said.

His polar opposite, damage123 - a self-centered punk, has crossed a line that I hope will be neither tolerated nor forgiven by the posters here. He should not only be ignored, but shunned.

Excellent comment David,

I would elaborate with one more regular around here who goes by 'jolly old soul', who repeatedly boasted about coming home from Viet Nam and being greeting with urine & blood filled balloons.

Makes for a riveting story until, it was exposed he was not old enough to have served...

Phonies like those two distract from the honor of all those who did serve with honor & bravery like yourself & Jack!

PS: I'll wager you $10,000 Brain Damaged is a re-reg of CU Farley... interested? ;o)

Time for Tea baggers, the GOP, and the clown candidates to retch.

All your retching sounds belong here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWU0mEhUEmo&feature=fvwrel

What you righties posit is crap!!!

His polar opposite, damage123 - a self-centered punk, has crossed a line that I hope will be neither tolerated nor forgiven by the posters here. He should not only be ignored, but shunned.

Hi David,

So true, and damage123 is ignored and shunned in my book.

Thanks

As for Santorum's snob remark yesterday I think Frank Bruni said it best in his opinion piece in the NYT.

Kennedy championed autonomy. Santorum champions adherence — to his way of thinking. And his qualms aren’t just with college today. They’re with the true purpose and importance of education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/opinion/bruni-its-a-college-not-a-cloister.html?hp

David, not so sure you can complain about anyone else when it comes to vile posts as I remember you comparing me to Sandusky and making light of my views as a result. To me that is more vile than anything damage can post. To compare anyone's political opinion to raping a child is the most vile thing imaginable. So I would try and keep the self righteousness to a minimum.

Let Willard continue to live off of his Cayman Island & Swiss piggy bank(S) and allow President Obama the opportunity to continue cleaning up the mess left by the last GNOP President!

YES WE CAN! Obama/Biden 2012

Feisty, Yes indeed.

Looking forward to the "GANG" tonight tracking the MI and AZ preliminaries on MSNBC. Always fun and informative to watch.

Don't know who to pull for tonight, can't stand any of them. Guess I'll cheer for Paul, at least he's fun. Tonight could be Romney's last hurrah if he loses MI or just squeaks out a win. It'll throw the whole GOP Party into a tizzie. That would make the GOP Convention a 3 ring circus and fun to watch.

Obama in 2012.

David, so beautifully said on a very sensitive and sacred subject. Thank you for your service and to Jack too thank you. You both exemplify the best this country has to offer. It is unfortunate that in serving your country so well, cretins such as Damage are also protected and sadly they are not grateful and abuse their right to free speech.

As a naturalized citizen, I too, have taken that oath and take it seriously. That's why I am here so I hopefully can make a difference.

Again David, thank you. You, Jack and others who have served are much appreciated.

Joe in Albany.

Thanks for your gloomy predictions about the economy. As you said we just have to wait and see about the job report that will be out in the next weeks.

Meanwhile, I did not know a toaster is a durable good. OK, I will do my part. Mine is at least 15 years old. I am buying a new one. Anyone else?

I wonder how many toasters Romney owns?

Ron, well said. Here's another reason why the price is so high. Last year and for the first time, the US's top export was fuel. The big refineries shipped 117 million gallons of gasoline per day out of the country and that practice continues. Fuel exports are big dollar value for Big Oil. The rest of us including commuters, truckers, airlines, farmers have been taken to the cleaners by Big Oil with the usual explanation that it's supply and demand. Sure, it is but that is because the supply is being shipped outside the country by Big Oil which then soaks it to the rest of us at the gas pump and speculators drive up the price of oil; and Big Oil cries "we must build the Keystone Pipeline", damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. After Keystone is built, there will be another excuse for soaking the rest of us at the pump because even more than 117,000 million gallons of fuel per day will be shipped overseas at huge profit for Big Oil--making matters worse, we taxpayers subsidize them to do it.

DAVID WALKER, perfect; thank you.

Kirk:

I'm sick and tired of this nonsense about my having compared you to Sandusky. Put that post up here, right now, and let others judge whether that is the case.

I will advise you in advance to be prepared for the fact that the majority of posters here will recognize yet another one of your pathetic attempts to portray yourself as a victim.

Come on, put it up.

Excellent post David.

What damage did is intolerable, but a lot of what I read from Fiesty, Beverly, Job1 and other democrats on here is pretty intolerable also. The only reason I have any faith at all in democrat voters (no faith in politicians from either party) is because of ones where I work. I can sit down and have some very interesting adult conversations and debates with them. Conversations where can both see each other's side, but agree to disagree and still be friends.

I find it extremely hypocritical the way the above mentioned talk down to about republicans and members of the tea party. They seem to forget that just like them, these folks are American citizens fighting for what they believe. They aren't rich, they are educated for the most part, they are just normal every day citizens just like democrat voters are. Yet the above mentioned talk about them like they are less than animals.

Democrats always talk about human rights, feeding the poor, support for welfare, etc. Yet when it comes to political conversation, they turn worse than religious fanatics.

They'll flame me for this post, but the truth hurts. It would be nice if FR would become more adult and a lot less childish.

Grow up! (not referenceing you David, others)

Jody, Iowa: Ron, well said. Here's another reason why the price is so high. [Blah-blah-blah-blah . . . .]

Great, another convert! Another one turning their back on what Pelosi, Reid, Wyden, and some guy named Barack said that high gas prices were all President Bush's fault back in 2008.

Now if either you or Ronnie had made this great conversion a year or two ago, you'd have a little bit of credibility. As it is, you're being quite disingenuous about the entire deal.

Obama 2012 - "It was Bush's fault in 2008, but it's not my fault now"

There Joe in Albany goes again praying the economy tanks. You tea people GOP Koch republicans are amazing, cheering for bad news on the economy. As totally out of this world your candidates are it won't make any difference anyway. BTW: Joe you forgot to mention the S&P 500 closed at it's all time high yesterday, the Dow is about to crack the 13,000 mark and the Nasdaq is at it's highest in 4 years.

You will be disappointed in the jobs report next week.

Great post David Walker. Yes Damage123 needs to be ignored.

Okay. Those of you who collapsed David's post, you want to come on and say why? It was not a violation of COH.

Or does the truth simply hurt?

Okay. Those of you who collapsed David's post, you want to come on and say why?

Are you kidding?

We don't call them collapse cowards for nothing...

First Read really needs to address Newsvine about getting the collapse feature disables or at the very least more fairly weighted!

Jody, you hit the nail on the head, as I recall a large part of the criticism of Bush when in office as gas prices rose to similar levels was that he was in bed with the oil companies that were soaking us. I never thought it was his fault, just that he more or less condoned it based on his positions visa-vi Big Oil. I don't think there is much that President Obama can do about this either as it is a global situation. At least he has come out for getting rid of subsidies for this industry that clearly is in no need of corporate welfare. Domestic oil production is higher now than it has been in some time. Newts fantasy of $2.50 gasoline demonstrates that he is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Gingrich is what stupid people think smart looks like.

Feisty -- How does one go about getting a post restored?

In terms of gas prices, it's a case of price fixing plain and simple. If we were actually paying what gasoline is worth, we would have demanded alternative energy sources a long time ago. Big oil doesn't want that to happen, so they buy our politicians, who in turn create subsidies enabling the price to remain lower than it should be.

I'm really sick of this debate about drilling and pipelines, and my reasonings have nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with common sense. We can drill all the wells you want and build all the pipelines you want, it doesn't change the fact that oil is still a finite resource and will run out one day.

Either we fix the problem and get off of it now, or we committ ourselves to fighting increasingly desparate, violent, and extended wars, and rioting in our streets.

And please, when did higher education become something we ridicule and look down upon in this country??? Really, "snobs"??? The whole purpose of the generations prior to mine, within my family at least, was to work hard so I could do better than them. That meant going to college.

This pandering is stomach turning.

That'll do it GBM! lol ; )

Sarah -- Some prefer to worry about today and let someone else in the future worry about the future. When the message becomes distorted by greed no one wins. We need long term solutions to the energy quagmire. Too bad the ignorant hijacked reality.

Feisty -- How does one go about getting a post restored?

DCIA - you have to send an e-mail via the 'report bug' feature in the upper right hand corner of the front page of your Newsvine account.

Northstar DFL - Mitt probably thinks a toaster is someone you hire (and fire when the job is done) to raise a glass of libation in honor of someone....if you ask him how does he toast bread it might be too hard to comprehend......

As for the Collapse Cowards....that is simply ridiculous collapsing an honest mans statement.....there are really more mindless rants that should be collapsed and aren't,,,,,,there should be an "Uncollapse" feature.

Thanks David for your service....I never served (back in my day your Bday determined your lottery number) but I had several family members who did serve - one a helicopter pilot in Viet Nam for 2 tours....to those who do serve to give us the opportunity to speak on this board a great big shout out and Thank You!

Thanks Feisty! For now GBM took care of the problem. Appreciate the info and will use it as often as necessary!

The disgusting, party first republiturds are dead-in-the-water this year!

Fact: Obama/Biden will win again in 2012! No doubt!!

Correction to #1.24, last sentence--that is 117 million gallons not 117,000 million. Oh, well, it's early.

David, I am not going to fight with you over it because you know you did it. At the same time, if you would stop your sanctimonious writing and stop the condescending attitudes in your posts as if you are the arbiter of all that is right and wrong in this world, posts like this would be more credible. Have you noticed that you only get the bigots like Fiesty along with the idealogues to agree with you? If you truly were as gifted and a legend in your own mind as you thought you were, you might actually find a few more people in your camp. I wish these posts could be more about the passionate discussions of the political positions but people cant help themselves. For every vile post by damage, Fiesty lets loose with a vile post attacking either a poster she doesnt agree with or a GOP candidate so get off the soap box. I have seen some of the worst relgious bigotry from Fiesty and not one word from you to stop. I would love to see you post some political idea and then watch to see who on this blog will be the first to reply with some personal attack or snide remark regarding a poster or candidate and which posters will actually debate the issues.

Krik: David, not so sure you can complain about anyone else when it comes to vile posts as I remember you comparing me to Sandusky and making light of my views as a result.

Mr. Walker: I will advise you in advance to be prepared for the fact that the majority of posters here will recognize yet another one of your pathetic attempts to portray yourself as a victim.

You have to be careful with Mr. Walker Kirk. His continued self righteous posts telling everyone which people to ignore and which people not to ignore belay the fact that he gets real angry when his posting style is thrown back in his face. Pot-Kettle-Black kind of a thing.

I'll never ignore Mr. Walker, his rants are too funny to miss.

David is just another Left Lib around here that has to be dealt with and told how to behave. I doubt he'll ever get it.

It does not matter who gets in. America will continue to postpone its debt as long as possible until everything implodes. Relax and enjoy the time we have left.

RE: Santorum the ludicrous

I don't always find LZ Granderson's comments over at CNN to be unbiased. Its not his job, anyway. But sometimes he comes up with a real gem of a comment, and as I always prefer to have respectable people representing each party to provide an actual CHOICE for America, I like almost nothing better than to make fun of the regressives in each party (what would liking actually nothing better be? If those regressives stayed home and didn't run for anything).

Faux Republican Santorum, summed up nicely here:

Granted, some of us are gullible enough to give each other high-fives because Rick Santorum called Obama a snob for promoting a college education.

But the rest of us look at "Slick Rick's" college degree, law degree and MBA, the fact that he's sending his kids to college and owns at least six properties, and has earned millions, and wonder -- What is he talking about? Virtually every socioeconomic study looking at the intersection of income and education shows a direct correlation between the two. For Santorum to vilify higher education for political gain -- while obviously benefiting from attending universities -- is embarrassing. Then saying that John F. Kennedy's famous 1960 speech standing up for the separation of church and state made him want to throw up?

Well, that makes me nauseous.

There are a few conservative Newsviners who actually find points to attack Obama on that make sense. I'd recommend they join the Santorum campaign if he were looking for them. But he's not.

Kirk:

Afraid to put that post out there, are you?

Come on, put it out there.

David Walker:

Post 1.3: You said what needed to be said and you said is very well. RWNJ's simply can't handle the truth. That's why you were collapsed. Thanks to GBM, it up again.

David walker, I am surprised that you haven't realized that newsvine moderators fear to tread on FR boards, or were told not to.

JAS1 and Kirk -- Very few people on this board are qualified when posting on certain subjects such as war and service. David, Jack, and IR are great examples of who does qualify. To suggest otherwise is outrageous.

On a lighter note. Hope Jack pops in today. Not only do I want him to read David's post but I wanted to talk to him about woodpeckers. Noisy but they serve a purpose. Should compliment the heron's purpose as well. : )

We don't call them collapse cowards for nothing...

_____________________________________

Nasty Redhead: Would they be the FR lefty liberals that I thank and then LMAO at for collapsing just about 100% of my first post's of the morning??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, poor JoAnna? David needs to be told how to behave? I see messages to you daily about the same issue, and I happen to know you were suspended at least once.

Perhaps you could look to your own behavior.

There is a difference between nastiness and irreverance. Nasty is irreverant without the truth or intellect behind it, or aimed at a person instead of a belief or issue.

Some folks need to learn the differnce, and if you're questioning whether you're one of them, it probably means you are.

Sarah,

While I do agree with some of your points, it does not mean that we don't need to worry about the short term future (next 5 - 10 years minimum). We need to become independent with our own oil, while also working on alternative sources of fuel. My Ram 1500 doesn't get the best gas mileage, but I also live and work in a rural area where I have to deal with large amounts of snow at times. Which is why you will see a large number of full size 4x4 trucks where I live. I have a 20 minute commute on a rural highway one way that around this time of year will on average be packed snow down to black ice. Also, since I live in a rural area, there is no access to any alternative fuel source short of the people with Prius's in town, and a Prius isn't going to get me to work.

So there is a lot more to do than just finding the alternative fuel source, it also has to have the engine power to get some of us through the weather, those in rural areas need access to it (if it isn't batteries), and it has to be cost effective. It's going to take time to meet all of those needs, so in the mean time, we need to be able to use standard gas.

David, November 17th post 1.78 where I am having a discussion about the unintended consequences and a cost benefit analysis needs to be discussed and addressed before Obama regs get promulagated. Everyone was posting about the air quality benefits of new EPA regs and I was saying that before all the progressives get giddy, maybe we should discuss the costs. The article cited 4000 thousand people would be saved annually which in a country of over 300 million people is not many unless you are one of those 4000. I asked the question, what if saving those 4000 people cost hundreds of billions, eliminated 100,000 jobs which clearly increased the poverty, suicide etc rates and you could accurately determine that over 4000 people died from other causes and the misery index was much higher than the benefit of the increased air quality. All of you guys jumped down my throat as not being sensitive to the 4000 people that were being saved and the environment and you wrote.

David wrote "There's at least 8 boys - that's less than thousands, you know? - who were allegedly molested by a guy named Sandusky. Now, there's loads of laws, regulations, rules and other stupid stuff like that, that say you can't molest boys.

Now, that's no kind of embellishment, that's just the way it is, and I may not have looked into it, and Anna Molly hates me, but those laws just didn't work. And incremental benefits or not, they didn't work, so why should we have them at all, and it doesn't matter if they were Republicans or Democrats.

Besides they cost a lot of money and think of the lives that are going to be ruined. Look at all the people who have been fired. Their lives will never be the same, all because of 8 or so stupid little boys. And personally, I like football and now that's going to change. It's just not fair.

There's thousands more laws and regulations like that, maybe millions and they cost a lot of money, but I'm not going to show them to you. You have to find them, but I'm right."

So yes I found it. You equated a discussion on cost benefit analsyis of government regulations and its unintended consequences to this horrible tragedy. Yes you were vile.

DiSano says he targeted nearly 50,000 Democratic voters in Michigan through email and a robo call to their homes, asking them to go to the polls Tuesday to vote for Rick Santorum in attempt to hurt Romney.

Yeah, I received a few robo calls and I got a kick out of them! Hell one of my GOP friends said I was playing dirty because I voted for Santorum. Well normally I wouldn't have but I just can't stand a guy claiming a Michigan as his "home" state when he hasn't lived here in years. But hey this is politics and if Mitt wants to win here he is going to have to earn it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama\Biden 2012

David, keep on keeping on.

I appreciate your posts.

For those of you on the right AND the left who insist on slamming anyone who does not agree with you, there are those of us on this forum who are able to read all opinions and still have our own.

Collapsing does not deter us. We support the freedom of speech of all posters. We likewise reserve the right to disagree. We also ask that extreme views be moderated by those who might wish to express them.

The Kid Rock show was packed last evening at the Royal Oak Music theater. Time to take my wife to vote! It wont be Santorum im sure.

Dearest David. The internet is FILLED with lefties who claim to have been in the military and/or combat (and were not) because they feel it gives them credibility when debating about the Liberals tradition and sad history of often siding with our enemies in wartime, disrupting and undermining our war efforts etc... Some will falsely claim to be veterans because they feel it will allow them to say "I served so I'm allowed say whatever the hell I want...blah blah blah". If you and Port In Jacksmouth did, IN FACT serve in Vietnam, then Jack has my sincerest apology for my claiming he is one of the above-noted people. As for you, this is the first I've heard of your service, so thanks to you too. I would hope after getting indignant that you are TELLING THE TRUTH.

With that being said... It's still kind of hard to believe that you, Port or any Vietnam Vet would be as far left as you people are? Don't you all remember the shameful, treasonous, disgusting behavior of the lefties during that era? Do you remember the way they carried the North Vietnamese flag in their protests? Remember Jane Fonda? Remember the way they referred to you all as "baby killers?" Why in the HELL would you then go on to BE ONE OF THOSE VERY PEOPLE?

Many of the leftists cretins on here would have, no doubt, been the very same rioting, treasonous bastards that I'm talking about had they been old enough. And you consider them your friends?

Alex,

I totally get what you're saying. I look at it like, if we come up with alternatives and better effeciencies, than those of us who are in your position, where large vehicles are necessary, won't be an issue. They'll be off set by the majority of the populace using any number of alternative sources. That will delay the fast approaching "run out of oil apocalypse" and allow us to invesnt an engine powerful enough to meet your needs without the guzzling of gasoline.

We have the technology, we just don't get to use it because of money in politics.

DCIA--I understand. My father in law was in Viet Nam for two years has a bronze star and a variety of medals. I have nephews who have been to the Iraq. I have the utmost respect for those serving our military. I would say that the vast majority of those who dont respect our military are not voting GOP. My issue with David is that he acts as if he is above the fray and feels the need to scold the children like myself who dare to have a different view, experience or opinion as him. Second the hypocrisy of scolding someone like Damage who may well deserve it while constantly praising or giving free passes to Fiesty and Backhouse destroys his credibility.

Sarah: there is a difference between nastiness and irreverance [sic]

So which is this one, nasty or irreverent, from your Profile? Cleaned up a bit so it's displayable.

Sarah: The gay, Mexican, Muslims are coming to eat up our fetuses and s**t out our Bibles! Oh my!.

Kirk:

And I equated you to Sandusky, how?

No, you were lampooned, and rightfully so. Really, you have a serious problem in the critical thinking department. And now, I'm going to scare the hell out of the posters here, by reminding them that you actually claim to be a lawyer.

That's what we call irreverant. I'm making fun of the paranoid mindset of some conservatives who buy into fear mongering about Mexicans, Muslim, gays, and abortion.

I'm making fun of the issues, the mindset, the baselss fear associated with it. If you can't deal with someone making fun of mindsets which they don't agree with or think are silly, you have a serious issue with satire and free speech.

Really? (P.S. That's also an irreverant take on your attempt to skew it into something it clearly isn't.)

Joe and Joanna,

I am intensely interested in who you are supporting for the GOP Primary. All you do is attack Democrats and their comments and give no insight as to how you feel besides your hatred for the other side of the aisle.

I certainly don't agree with all Democrats on this thread, but at least I know where they stand. Please enlighten me where you stand without a comment meant to redirect...

Sarah: That's what we call irreverant[sic]. I'm making fun of the paranoid mindset of some conservatives who buy into fear mongering about Mexicans, Muslim, gays, and abortion.

Pretty uncouth way of expressing yourself. Is it your goal to be nasty and insult? Because I doubt you'll get many converts using that premise and language. Not much of a lady you are.

Kirk and JAS, really?!

These are the things that offend you? Really?!

You need to read posts in full. You need to recognize sarcasm. You need a thicker skin. Isn't that what you expect from the rest of us?

Look at what Santorum just did with Obama's words. He cherry picked them, quoted them out of context, took undue umbrage and ended up making himself look foolish.

RM: I am intensely interested in who you are supporting for the GOP Primary.

The winner.

JAS,

I don't know what you're talking about, the two words that best describe me are timeless and regal. (Again that sentence is irreverance and sarcasm being utilized to make a point)

But really, not being seen as lady like doesn't really concern me. I claim to be a lot of things, lady like isn't necessarily one of them. It really isn't on my top ten list of adjectives I desire to be, you know things like smart, gutsy, honest, witty.

I think lady like falls somewhere between intemperate and exotic. Good thing I'm not in this to "convert" people, I have no problem with them not thinking like me.

Now, please excuse me, I have some uncouth "F Bombs" to go drop.

Kirk -- I'm glad you understand that David was well qualified to speak up on the issue of service. But the rest of your post shows disdain for others and the sentence below defies even ignorance. Mea cupla be damned it's inexcusable.

I would say that the vast majority of those who dont respect our military are not voting GOP.

Oh, come on, JoAnne, as if you haven't been just as low yourself. Stop being a hypocrite. Your opponents sling mud, you sling mud. I sling mud at you and your opponents for slinging mud. When a repeat poster comes by here and acts 'like a lady' or 'a gentleman' nobody on this board would recognize it anyway. First Read is the home of the screamers of the left and the right.

fielden: Look at what Santorum just did with Obama's words. He cherry picked them, quoted them out of context, took undue umbrage and ended up making himself look foolish

Yeah, that's never happened before in politics. Breaking new ground here.

fielden: You need to read posts in full. You need to recognize sarcasm.

Sure, I use that at times too. Mr Walker was all bent out of shape about it We saw the true Mr. Walker on that occasion, name calling, threats, spittle flying off his cyber-chin, he completely lost his mind.

Or are you talking about our dearesty Sarah? . . . "s**t out our Bibles". My, what pleasant imagery.

The winner.

Once a coward... always a coward...

What's the matter Snuffy - bridle to tight today?

Joe to be fair... many of the times your post have gotten collasped I have seen you specifically call for it to be collasped in post following (before the actual post was collasped). Would you not think that had anythign to do with it?

As a moderate who leans democrat/left I was really looking for someone this election who would challenge the president who I felt really did not come through for democrats in his 4 years served. I dfended him avidly the first 2 and thought that he would come along, but in my opinion that never came to be. Though I do realize the republicans were a great opposing force throughout his term, I still must admit I was not happy with the results the president delivered. I remember conversations with my older brother a couple years ago of how we would definitely be seeing a republican in office next term.

Then, this group came along. And though I was not happy with Obama, I refuse to cut off my nose to spite my face. This group is simply unelectable period. If not from the mere rhetoric being pushed ,all of these candidates have plans to turn this country for the far worse. The only one able to be considered is Romney and that is for his great "economic leadership". Yet, he is introudcing a tax plan that will cripple and already ailing government budget.

I completely understand those who are against Obama and respect their opinions against him. What I just am trully incapable of understanding is what makes anyone think that any of these candidates are a superior alternative? It is one of the issues I struggle dealing with. Even my conservatives friends see nothing in them as well.

JAS,

See, how you called me "dearest", I take that as irreverant because it has underlying tones pertaining to being "lady like" which was part of the banter in the above posts. Good job and good thing my sensibilities aren't as delicate as yours though, otherwise I might find it insulting.

Ah, free speech, it allows me to say things like "sh** out our Bibles" and "God hates scallops" and make fun of religion and ideology and lady parts probing, until I'm blue in the face, and it doesn't care that it offends you. That's why I love it. Because it places more value on my sarcasm then on your sensitivity.

It makes no sense for the media to cover a Republican primary in the State of Michigan. Why? Because neither of those two bozos will win Michigan in the National Election this November.

Michigan will vote Dem in November.

DCIA, How is that ignorance? How many anti military voters also vote GOP? I think its pretty obvious that former military or armed services personnel are heavily weighted to the conservative side. What part of my comments were inexcusable?

So Fielden, so now its just thicker skin but David doesnt need thicker skin if he advocates the ignore button? Are you serious? Its ok to use a molestation tragedy to "lampoon" me in his own words and I am supposed to have thicker skin rather than call him a vile human being but if he doesnt like something posted, advocating the ignore button is not being a big cry baby?

You realize he thinks he was lampooning me because I had the audacity to suggest we examine the unintended consequences of laws or regs issued by the administration. Thats all-- a very simple concept in which he thinks questioning my pedigree or education is somehow in question because I actually said wow can we examine the impact of what our decisions might create. You also notice that he had to throw in that last personal attack to somehow lessen the content because its easier to ignore substance and my lack of critical thinking (yeah right) if he somehow makes light of me.

This is what you guys call debate? This has nothing to do with thick or thin skin or vile comments, its all about David's ego and the progressive need to personally attack and destroy any poster or person or GOP candidate that they feel is below them. Look how each post from Fiesty starts out? She never just states why "in her humble opinion" why she disagrees with a candidate, its all about the personal attack and getting a cyber laugh at her lame attempts at poking fun. David is all about making us uneducated fiscal conservatives who dont share Obama's financial vision for this country learn from his "teachable moments of pedagogical brilliance"

Northstar,

Got my eye on a Cuisinart Toaster Oven over at Macy's. Will have it by Saturday! Also looking at some new spinner luggage,...That's a 10 year warranty, so surely that's 'durable', eh?

Shop 'til you drop!

I am intensely interested in who you are supporting for the GOP Primary

__________________________________________________

I am a registerd independent and fiscal conservative and always have been since I first voted at age 18. I don't pay attention to any primary contests Dem or Republican. I haven't watched any of the Republican debates and feel that whatever I spent that time on was a better use of the limited resource of my time. Once both parties have made their nominations, I vote for the candidate that I believe is the closest match to my values and beliefs. That person is highly unlikely to be Barry Obama.

Krk is a troll of the finest order, been here for a long time under a variety of monikers. He understands neither the decorum he claims to defend, or why the level of vitriol displayed by Damage raises to a level of disrespect for others that vastly exceeds anything I've ever witnessed from Feisty or virtually anyone else for that matter. The problem with that Damage is that it never changes, he never contributes, he just agitates and then defames the character of others. What Damage does raises to the level of hate speech with all of his name calling, unfounded accusations, outright lies and he should rightfully be on full ignore by anyone who considers themselves decent. There is no acceptable excuse for his brand of diatribe. Damage, is just that, damaged. He is so angry that he cannot communicate with civil people and has lost all sense of manners and acceptable behavior.

Most of us find David's posts informative. There are some thin skinned Republicans on this blog who cannot handle any sort of disagreement and brand such disagreement as condescending or, how was it put, "sanctimonious". David's posts are neither. Kirk's posts, are for the most part, uninformative whining about other people and present no solutions to issues. Sorry Kirk, it's all I see. Clicked on your name, read the last 8 posts.

Damage,

It's still kind of hard to believe that you, Port or any Vietnam Vet would be as far left as you people are? Don't you all remember the shameful, treasonous, disgusting behavior of the lefties during that era? Do you remember the way they carried the North Vietnamese flag in their protests? Remember Jane Fonda? Remember the way they referred to you all as "baby killers?" Why in the HELL would you then go on to BE ONE OF THOSE VERY PEOPLE?

First, I don't care whether you believe or don't believe I served in Viet Nam. It makes absolutely no difference to me. All I've ever seen from you is foul-mouthed language and a denigration of intelligent posters on this site. Your opinions don't matter to me because they are based entirely on emotion and not on thoughtful consideration. You seem to me to be a person who hates himself (and women) and takes his frustrations out here from the safety of your home or apartment.

Second, your naivete is stunningly on display when you assume that people who go to war don't come back with leftist leanings. You would be amazed how many of us return from war with our eyes opened to a new interpretation of how the world works--and, once opened, can never be shut again.

I will make three points regarding your "treasonous lefties" remark. First, true treasonous behavior is found in the governments who send troops into combat on false premises, not only because their own citizens will be killed or maimed, but innocent civilians on the other side will also suffer that fate. Second, I left Viet Nam hoping the North would win the war. Why? Because I was an interrogator who spoke Vietnamese fluently (and still do) and I interrogated a number of horribly maimed and/or dying North Vietnamese soldiers (not to mention innocent citizens), and I came to believe their cause was just. And finally, when I returned from Viet Nam I went to college and became one of the major anti-war leaders in the state. In terms of the latter, I consider my behavior a true exercise of citizenship.

Wake up, kid.

Ron Indiana,

The gas price issue is really a lot more about demand than it is about supply. It's portrayed as a supply issue, but in reality our gas usage has gone down and our dependence on the middle east is greatly exaggerated for political purposes. Most of our oil is from Canada and domestic sources. Europe and Asia are the ones that are most impacted by the middle east, but impacts to them affect the world market. The real problem is the ever growing demand in China and developing nations.

Drilling more in the U.S. is not an option that does anything other than line the pockets of the oil and gas industry. We can drill and process as much as we want and build pipelines all across the country, but the output will always go to the highest bidder, so China gets their oil and we're in the same boat we're in now anyway with perceived shortages and increasing higher prices. Alternative energy sources are the only way we can become energy independent. Anybody that doesn't see that isn't looking at the global picture where the US goes from the major user to having a smaller piece of the total pie of oil output. Some areas will drop in production from natural causes, others will be impacted by instability, and new safe development of new well takes years to come on line, so there is no quick fix and the challenges will keep on coming so we will have periods of high fuel prices over the next decades regardless of which political party holds power. We need to start taking a long term approach to this instead of short term patches that are not sustainable.

TO: Joe in Albany who wrote:

"Looks like the decent jobs reports in the last two months may have been just a blip rather than a trend towards an improving economy..."

Well, you know Republicans busting their butts to do everything in their power to stall our recovery, and whenever there IS good news for America and the American People, Republicans act like it's absolutely devastating to them, and they frame their language to make matters appear worse than things are.

So far as I'm concerned, Republicans are nothing more than a "rain cloud" hanging over an otherwise sunny day.

Obama / Biden 2012

Sarah: See, how you called me "dearest",

I could call you "Dumb Fux", but that's reserved for someone very special.

No Sarah, you're pretty shallow, not much intensity in your posts. On one subject you got involved in you challenged me to present a program that would reduce the debt and not kill the economy. I presented you with the President Obama's Debt Commission report. I asked you for the same, and that's the last you were heard from on the subject.

And that's what you're like Sarah, you seem to want to just bother other posters. You have no depth, no knowledge of anything anyone would discuss with you. When the going gets tough, you run away. That puts you in the ranking of "Dumb Fux".

So go s**t out another Bible. That's about your speed.

Krk is a troll of the finest order,

Amused,

Amen to that! I couldn't stomach his incessant whining & victim persona!

Therefore, Corky earned a spot on my very selective 'ignore' list a long time ago!

Congrats Corky!

Fielden, I am no Santorum fan as his social conservative views are way to the right of me but it appears that the only people that consider him fools are the left. According to the USA today and Rasmussen polls yesterday, Santorum is leading Obama by 5 points in the swing states. Do you realize how bad that is for Obama to be losing at the weakest GOP moment? The GOP candidate will never be as unpopular as they are now during the primary because of all the focus on the negative during the primary. As soon as one candidate is determined and all the energy is focused on campaigning against Obama, the only place for the GOP candidate to go is up in the polls. The fact that Obama is losing to Santorum now must be killing the white house. Now there is plenty of time for Obama to rally if the economy really does pick up (not just the media blitz from the mainstream to make it seem as if it is truly on the fast road to recovery) because he is fantastic campaigner and knows how to politic and offer everyone something for their vote. But you have to admit, it doesnt look good at the moment.

As for Akeem and the Romney tax plan, why anyone believes any candidate during a campaign and uses that to vote is silly. For the same reason you voted for Obama and he turned out nothing like you hoped it would be the same for Romney. They all make promises they have no intention of keeping so I wouldnt not vote for Romney because of some stupid tax plan, you should vote for the candidate you think has the best chance at leading us out of this financial morass. Obama's recent corporate tax plan is full of the same idiotic nonsense so you cant judge someone based on political promises. You have experience knowing Obama cant and doesnt get it but you are correct that still could be better than any of the GOP candidates. I just wouldnt vote based on silly campaign speeches.

I could call you "Dumb Fux", but that's reserved for someone very special.

Listen you amateur, I told you yesterday, if this is another lame attempt on your part to insult me it's an EPIC FAIL!

I have been called MUCH worse by MUCH better then you will ever be, sweet-cheeks!

Now loosen your feed bag & take a deep breath for a change of pace! ;o)

Sarah-3043284

I for one totally approve of the language you use in your account bio. The irony and sarcasm used goes directly to the heart of the issue. Don't change a word of it.

All you Michigan Democrats get out and vote for Santorum today. Operation Chaos in full effect!!!!!!!!!

JAS,

OOOOHHHHH, apparently I got under somebody's "lady like" skin, huh? And you didn't answer the question about the economy, you tried to answer a question with a question. I asked you first about an economic plan, neener, neener, neener, yada, yada, yada... I ask first, you answer first.

Besides I've posted my ideas numerous times. Any one can go to my page and check them out. Unless, wait, are you just trying to discredit me because I'm a smarty pants???

Well my mama always says, "Better to be a smart a** than a dumb a**, Sarah."

Excuse me, I have to go eat some fetuses and sh** out some Bibles. I just wonder which version I'll poop out today.

DCIA,

Jeez, woodpeckers! That's a bit extreme even for me!

David Walker

No, you were lampooned, and rightfully so. Really, you have a serious problem in the critical thinking department. And now, I'm going to scare the hell out of the posters here, by reminding them that you actually claim to be a lawyer.

LOL!!!

I agree completely. Kirk has serious issues with critical thinking, and I seriously doubt he is a lawyer...or at least not a very good one.

He will consistently spin in circles chasing straw men, and generally ends up having to project and deflect in angered frustration. (I have frequently been informed that I am in a sub-terrainian location owned by my parents....almost always following his inability to back up the crap he is clearly repeating).

Great fun.

@ David Walker...

You whiney, hypocritical little BIOTCH!

You rail posters like damage all the while putting vile creatures like Feisty and Bev on a pedestal. The things that damage posts here are no worse than the hatred and bigotry that spews form those two, yet you find nothing wrong with them.

You disgust me with your hypocrisy!

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

Amused in the Midwest--thanks for proving my point again but let me correct a few things for you. I havent been on this blog that long and have always posted under one moniker. After my alumni blog got shut down I was looking for someplace that actually had some political discussion. What you call whining, I call pointing out hypocrisy and making sure that people like Fiesty get called out on it. I am from Chicago and based on reading Fiesty, probably know more about Obama's past and history here than she could ever know. When I try to have any sort of actually critically thought out discussion, you wouldnt believe the personal attacks I get. And you notice, you did it too. Instead of focusing on any substantive post, you prefered to attack me. Thats not being thin skinned thats pointing out that you couldnt substantively debate so you went after me.

DCIA, I think Jack in Portsmouth just made my point with his post dont you think? I respect his service but my father in law would have him hung for his borderline treasonous views and behavior after the war. I think he clearly defines what the left holds true. Although I am sure he is fine with the 3 million lives lost in Cambodia after the US left as ok. I dont think Jack holds views that are reflective of the vast majority of servicemen and women.

I could call you "Dumb Fux", but that's reserved for someone very special.

Now, that, at least, is pretty funny. The rest of it, however, is mostly false. If you want to start winning elections (note some of the extreme left could actually use some of this EXACT same advice), you should start recognizing that calling people with intelligent arguements that disagree with you 'shallow' does not make it so. Its the Santorum approach and it is ineffective. Well, unless your base is going to take whatever you say as 'gospel.'

Think of it as the exact same thing when some PETA member tries explaining that spray painting a fur coat is an intelligent way to protest. Pretty much no matter what they say, its obvious the reverse is true.

I know its a lot to ask the First Read posters, but Alan in NJ gets a lot more mileage and convincing out of his posts than the 'Braveheart' approach by you and Joe in Albany. Oh, and to be fair, than Feisty (you'r welcome, Feisty). Really, you ever change minds by yelling at people?

Well, of course, that's what I do. I make fun of the extreme left and right. But personally, there is a level where I don't care who wins an election. If you don't care either, well then, welcome to the 'irreverent' crowd. Because at least its entertaining, if not effective.

@Jack in Portsmouth: Clearly, Damage123 isn't really trying to have a discussion. But I'll say I read your post and yes, I respect your point of view even if I may disagree from time to time. Anyone who invokes the name of 'Jane Fonda' to represent all 'liberals' (really just people they disagree with) or 'Oli North' to represent all 'conservatives' has a ) already lost the arguement, and b ) is probably a book burning cultist of his/her favorite party, following them around like an extremist cleric.

Not one single person will be giving Obama their vote today , guarantee ....

I hope that trend spreads across all of America ....

Fiesty,

Calling someone a coward because they won't say who they're going to vote for? I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet either, but I guess that makes me a coward also. Or maybe it's because I'm completely unhappy with the choices we currently have, including Obama.... (nah, that couldn't be it)

My wife received an email yesterday from her sister that explains it a lot better for ya:

Voting for a president is like voting for which STD you'd rather have.

Ah Jack, not for you . They are for the empty headed trolls. They do like to hang out in trees. ; )

Republicant--if you only had the balls to come up for air and compare pedigrees. You are correct, I am a poor lawyer today (since I havent practiced in over 15 years) so got me there. But I am sure the rest of my experience, education, knowledge, professional success or lack thereof wont hold a candle to you so let me have it. I know that you and David can use your personal attack skills to show how brilliant you are in comparison and I will just wilt under your amazing intellectual powers. Whenever I read anything from either of you, I feel like cowering in shame. So off I go, proven again by your mastery of the issues to the blog cemetary in the sky.

Kirk, I am not voting based on silly campaign speeches. Though I know his tax plan will not be truly implemented. My problem with him is that as an accountant unlike most people I understand taxesvery well. It is not he speech that bothers me it is the malice that comes with it; outwardly lying to people in the middle and lower classes that it is designed to help them when it is not. When both by percentage and nominaly it gives its greatest advantages to the rich.

Though he will not be able to pass his plan, he will probably in some way achieve part of it. Based on the message I was able to get from the above and comments by Romney himself whatever tax action he suggest will nto be aimed at the middle or lower class but at the rich.

It is clear Romney sees the rich as the catalyst for the economy. This is something I fundamentally disagree with. Due to things like capital gains being taxed at lower rates and other anomalies in the tax system I do not think money given to the rich goes directly into the economy(speaking of the very wealthy who marginal tax increases and decreases effect the most). My opinion is that this money is only hoarded in there estates and the only ouput given into the economy is from the interest they have collected.

Keep in mind this interest was only collected off the idea of having extra money laying around which could accrue it. Each of those dollars were taxed less than had it been given to the middle class which in turn also would lower the reciepts to the government and in my opinion less of those dollars (besides the lower taxed interest) are spent on goods than if it were distributed amongst a larger number of lower income individuals. This again lowers the amount of receipts collected by government and also has an effect on demands of goods.

I do not agree with trickle down economics. I do not agree with tax BREAKS for the rich. I cannot vote for someone who at the time, greatest contribution is exactly that. The other candidates I completely disagree with them socially so no reason to even mention fiscal policy

Ideology,

Like I told Derek, if some of these posters know what could come out of my mouth if I allowed it to, I'd be sh**ing Bibles and they'd be sh**ing bricks, lol.

Believe me when I say, this is censored Sarah. I can articulate a three paragraph opinion using nothing but the f-word if I choose to. The fact that on Newsvine I stray into multisyllabic words is a real coup for me.

Kirk,

DCIA, I think Jack in Portsmouth just made my point with his post dont you think? I respect his service but my father in law would have him hung for his borderline treasonous views and behavior after the war. I think he clearly defines what the left holds true. Although I am sure he is fine with the 3 million lives lost in Cambodia after the US left as ok. I dont think Jack holds views that are reflective of the vast majority of servicemen and women.

It sounds like your father-in-law has about as much critical thinking ability as you do. If the United States hadn't entered into a war in Viet Nam on false pretenses, there likely would not have been a take over by Pol Pot (our carpet bombing led to the destabilization of the Cambodian government), and hence 3 million lives would not have been lost.

You claim to be an attorney, but you have very little understandings of the principles upon which this country was formed. Go back and read the Federalist papers and other documents from the Founders' day--including the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights--and rediscover the roots of free speech. Your father-in-law is an ignoramus who learned nothing from his time in Viet Nam. Most people who go to war learn nothing from it. And there's a reason for it. But I'm not going to take the time to explain it because it would be lost on you.

DCIA - Aha! You caught me looking (as in "taking a third strike").

Once again Kirk -- You are trying to use me for your own purposes. You have done it before as well. This is the last time as I insist you stop immediately and to never ever do it again. It's offensive to say the least.

Kirk.

Fielden, I am no Santorum fan as his social conservative views are way to the right of me but it appears that the only people that consider him fools are the left. According to the USA today and Rasmussen polls yesterday, Santorum is leading Obama by 5 points in the swing states. Do you realize how bad that is for Obama to be losing at the weakest GOP moment?

Notice how you picked the two outliers....Rasmussen being a very frequent outlier. But...the delusion must find a way to continue, huh? LOL!!!

The fact that Obama is losing to Santorum now must be killing the white house. Now there is plenty of time for Obama to rally if the economy really does pick up (not just the media blitz from the mainstream to make it seem as if it is truly on the fast road to recovery) because he is fantastic campaigner and knows how to politic and offer everyone something for their vote. But you have to admit, it doesnt look good at the moment.

LOL!!! Obama is not losing to Santorum in most of the polls, kid. You are again desperately trying to reinforce the delusinonal reality you were fed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

Also, I realize you are certainly prone to believing in conspiracies, so the media one is no surprise. However, it is not really the media, it is the economic indicators the media is reporting on. Now, there are many things that can effect the economy in the future, but as it stands, the media is merely reporting on the facts.

Less cable news (or whatever is feeding you) would do you a world of good.

Kirk.

if you only had the balls to come up for air and compare pedigrees

If only I was as big a fool as you, and thought it was wise to post personal information on the internets...

I know that you and David can use your personal attack skills to show how brilliant you are in comparison and I will just wilt under your amazing intellectual powers

It is not about me. It is totally about you, and mocking your blatent ignorance and low cognative abilities.

Whenever I read anything from either of you, I feel like cowering in shame. So off I go, proven again by your mastery of the issues to the blog cemetary in the sky.

You should be ashamed of yourself for being so easily led along, and you should be even more ashamed for defending that delusion so vigerously.

Kirk.

When I try to have any sort of actually critically thought out discussion, you wouldnt believe the personal attacks I get. And you notice, you did it too. Instead of focusing on any substantive post, you prefered to attack me. Thats not being thin skinned thats pointing out that you couldnt substantively debate so you went after me.

You have shown many times you are not very good at thinking critically, and as a result, are unable to have substantive conversation on any level. You consistently deflect, project, insult, and present logical fallacies that, if followed, always end up circling back around to the starting point.

It is no wonder everyone has given up on a substantive debate with you. You have made it quite clear you cannot have one. You have horrible cognitive skills, and are incredibly ignorant when it comes to the issues.

Ron Paul! Sorry just had to say his name since the corporate media is so afraid to let the people hear it.

Ron Paul! Sorry just had to say his name since the corporate media is so afraid to let the people hear it.

LOL! Jack. It twas but a poor choice of wording on my part. But I do love your sense of humor!

You have no depth, no knowledge of anything anyone would discuss with you. When the going gets tough, you run away.

JAS,

Really? YOU are going to talk about knowledge? Just yesterday you made the comment that state run universities are "lower tier" than private universities, pointing to government interference and unions as the problem. Then you listed Harvard as an example of can be achieved without those interferences.

A poster then gave you PROOF that (1) Harvard teachers DO have a union, (2) Harvard gets government funding, and (3) MANY state run universities are among the top 10 in the country for a variety of majors.

FACTS proved you were WRONG... again. And what did you do?

When the going gets tough, you run away.

That's right... when FACTS proved you were wrong, you ran away.

And now you are going to blame someone else for doing the EXACT SAME THING you do? Really?

Kirk,

There was absolutely NOTHING in that post that compared YOU to Sandusky. You are playing the victim card... which is a very poor debate tactic.

Indie,

I'm sorry, did you say something??? I couldn't hear you since I ran away to the bathroom. Those Bibles go right through you, especially when you're scared.

BACK TO THE SUBJECT...

This is NOT about "momentum" or anything else orbiting out there except the fact that Obama's systematic failure to spend our tax dollars on worthless endeavors have gotten us nowhere except deeper in the hole!

Call all the names you want, degrade - change the subject or simply talk about the weather. Nothing changes that fact that anything good going on has been in spite of Obama's spending spree. The sooner he's out, the better we'll be!

I could call you "Dumb Fux", but that's reserved for someone very special.

Listen you amateur, I told you yesterday, if this is another lame attempt on your part to insult me it's an EPIC FAIL!

I have been called MUCH worse by MUCH better then you will ever be,

__________________________________

Nasty Redhead: NO!!! Say it ain't so!!!!!

This is the reason I love MSDNC and FR: The oblivious, unintended, comedy they consistently produce!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I appreciate you both sort of answering my question. But I was looking for more of a name as opposed to an idea.

Joanna,

The Winner

I fail to see how that is responsible politics. You genuinely don't care what each candidate stands for? As long as they run against a Democrat, you'll vote for them? I would hope someone who comments as often as you do would feel they have more skin in the game than to vote for the "other guy" regardless of his beliefs.

I am a registerd independent and fiscal conservative and always have been since I first voted at age 18. I don't pay attention to any primary contests Dem or Republican. I haven't watched any of the Republican debates and feel that whatever I spent that time on was a better use of the limited resource of my time. Once both parties have made their nominations, I vote for the candidate that I believe is the closest match to my values and beliefs. That person is highly unlikely to be Barry Obama.

Again, I think that's irresponsible. You have the chance to pick who you feel is the best candidate and you're willing to allow other people to choose for you. I have a hard time believing there hasn't been a candidate during these primaries that has more closely matched your values and beliefs rather than the current front runners. Especially if you consider yourself a fiscally conservative Independent. Also, I think it goes without saying you won't be voting for Obama...

In my opinion, nobody - Democrats, Republicans, Independents should vote at all. SAVE your time and gas!!! Why waste it on these freaks who is tring to swindle you for a vote. You will not be compensated for your gas, or your time. And I betcha not even a thank you!!

So people of Michigan and Arizona, do yourselves a favor, and do something else. Stay at work or get some overtime, save that vacation hours, go watch a show, do some shopping, cleaning, or catch up some more zzzzzs - especially you retirees. These lying Rethug hypocrites are NOT worthy of you!!

DCIA,

Now that you mention it (albeit, obliquely), I did you a disservice by including a note to you in a reply that, first and foremost, was addressed to Kirk. You deserve a reply all your own.

I'm glad you enjoy the humor. Sometimes it's the only way I can deal with people who don't have a thinking bone in their bodies--people who see only the tree in front of them. They're down there on the ground saying, "I'm in an oak forest." And you're up there looking down and saying, "Look to your left, idiot. There's a spruce within a stone's throw. And if you would only walk a dozen steps to your right front you would see an entire grove of beech trees. And immediately behind you is an orchard of apples trees." And they reply, "No, I'm in an oak forest. I can see it right there ahead of me." You wind up smacking your forehead in frustration with your palm.

Amazing, all of the problems are Obama's and not Bush's and the gas prices have nothing to do with Bush its all Obama's faults. They Keystone pipeline will solve all the problems.

Are there really people that believe that crap?

How much does it take for people to comprehend that the most any president effects gas prices is conflict in the middle east. Blame Bush for war x 2 on that. The keystone pipeline, has been signed and waiting for one REPUBLICAN governor to sign off on, so they can use it politically. Obama isn't holding it back at all. Yet they want to vote for republicans who are vowing to go to war with Iran and Santorum wants to go to war with China. MORE MONEY.

Yet Obama is a horrible human being for wanting all Americans to have health care when we could be raising babies to send to their wars?! I don't get republicans anymore, its like they have take a big batch of stupid pills. Everything rational about their agenda has gone by the way side for stupid social issues, stupid accusations and blatant lies.

You would have to be stupid to vote republican. They are owned by the oil industry, nothing they are saying is logical anymore. Nothing about the fiscal conservative way has actually been fiscally conservative in any president since Reagan. Actually both Clinton and Obama have been far more conservative fiscally, although admittedly Obama is more extreme on that. Obama care isn't ruining your lives, stop being fed stupid sauce from Fox news long enough to figure that out.

Great post David, as usual. I've had Damage123 on "ignore" for several months now and life it better for it. He's part of a large crowd of worthless rightwingers I choose not to bother with, just like I choose not to watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh. They are all a waste of my time and effort.

I thinking the prostitutes in Saigon said it best, "You numba ten, Damage 123!"

No, I wasn't in Viet Nam, but I lost many friends and relatives there and the few who came back, came back damaged and different and they told me story of the whores in Saigon.

Obama/Biden 2012

They'll flame me for this post, but the truth hurts. It would be nice if FR would become more adult and a lot less childish.

AlexM,

There is a specific reason why you do not see "adult" conversations on FR, or between Liberals and Conservatives in general... both parties use different forms of critical thinking and thought process.

Liberals generally look at the big picture. They look at how every platform affects the next, how they all work together, how they influence bigger issues.

Conservatives compartmentalize every issue, they put them in separate silos. They look at each issue individually and not how they interact with each other. Each platform is its own, and they do not look at the bigger picture.

For example: Take the platforms of welfare and abortion.

Liberals will look at how both issues in terms of the big picture. They don't like welfare, but they realize that it is a necessary evil, because we can not just let millions of people starve in the streets. They also do not like abortion, but also recognize it is a necessary evil, because we can not afford to take care of an exploding population. They realize that banning abortion will increase the welfare population, and increase our costs. On the flip side, stopping welfare will increase abortions and child death rates, as the poor will have no way to pay for their children. The two issues affect each other, they contribute to a bigger picture.

Conservatives compartmentalize each issue and refuse to look at how they affect each other. They are against welfare and want people to be "responsible"... a nice idea, but not reality. They are against abortion because of the emotional attachment to "babies"... they refuse to see that banning this, and "savings the babies" will increase the welfare population and our total costs in that entitlement. Each issue is put into a silo in their mind. They are against each one, on its own merits, but refuse to see how each will change the other. Their platforms literally contradict each other, but it's easier not to acknowledge that fact.

The same thing happens with religion. Conservatives focus on their compartmentalized religion, and fail to see that their ideology will open the door to ALL religions imposing their laws. Liberals see the issue of pushing one religion, in an country of "equality", and how that will open the door for all religions to push their ideas. Again, small picture (influence of your own religion) versus big picture (influence of all religions).

Now, how can people who process issues in completely different ways have an "adult" conversation? Every issue follows the same path, with each party addressing the issue according to their thought process. It's always small picture versus big picture.

Skip,

It's a pretty sad illustration of how much we didn't learn our lesson that I now get to watch my friends come home from Iraq/Afghanistan damaged or not at all.

It's even sadder that if Romney/Santorum/Gingrich get elected I'll be continuing to watch that happen for another decade. It will just be Iran/Afghanistan instead.

Jack -- If only they could see the orchards, beech groves and spruces. They are beautiful. : )

Not one single person will be giving Obama their vote today , guarantee ....

I hope that trend spreads across all of America ....

Lemme put it this way: You could put a loaded gun to my head and demand I vote for one of the Looney Toones the Right is running and I would rather take a bullet to the head than leave this country to be run into the sewer they're all promising us.

Republicant--if you only had the balls to come up for air and compare pedigrees. You are correct, I am a poor lawyer today (since I havent practiced in over 15 years) so got me there.

Admit it. You were disbarred. There's no way you could make the style of "argument" (used in the loosest of definitions) you use here in a courtroom and not be.

IndieParty

AlexM,

There is a specific reason why you do not see "adult" conversations on FR, or between Liberals and Conservatives in general... both parties use different forms of critical thinking and thought process....

then blah blah blah forever. Keep it simple...

Conservatives want to WORK AND MAKE THEIR OWN FUTURE...Liberals want THE GOVERNMENT TO BABYSIT THEM and redistribute money.

DCIA,

If only they could see the orchards, beech groves and spruces. They are beautiful.

So true, isn't it. I like the way you extended the metaphor. Maybe it's scary being down there in the forest, so they latch on to the one thing they can see--and hold on to it for dear life.

justoneguy,

So what you are saying is that I used too many big words for you... sorry, my bad.

BTW... when you say that Liberals want the government to babysit... what would you call the conservatives wanting the government to tell you who to marry, what to do with your own body, what to put in your own body, what words your children are allowed to hear on TV and radio? Sounds like a lot of babysitting to me.

Albany Joe, in reference to Democrats voting in the Michigan:

Republican Primary: Richard Nixon and the veterans of his 1972 Presidential campaign dirty tricks squad would be proud. What’s next, an Obama campaign team of burglars breaking into Romney national headquarters to try to steal campaign strategy and planning documents??

Joe, no need to go back that far. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would be proud of Democrats since he himself called for his right-wing Republican radio listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton in open primaries to prolong the Democratic primary race just 3 years ago. I believe it was called "Operation Chaos".

Of course, back then, things were much different. Any Democrat could have beaten a Republican President who had just had the American financial system collapse on his or her watch.

I just hope people remember that come November.

I love all this anger and hate--you guys always make it so easy to prove my point. At least Republicant attempts to actually prove me substantively wrong intertwined in his hate. Akeem at least he responded with a real substantive response. When you cant win, lets just make it seem as if the person we are replying to is an idiot or whatever name you would like to call because its clear to you nothing else works to support your own views.

First DCIA, I was replying to your comment so I wasnt using you for anything. Jack, thanks for the ignorant comments about my father in law as you clearly dont have a clue who you are referring to. Someone with a bronze star who fought for his country deserves the same respect as DCIA, David and others are asking that you get. But somehow Damage is vile? Interesting way of thinking. The problem with opinions is that guess what they are opinions. You can recreate in your mind and somehow rationalize away 3 million lives using what ifs but sorry buddy 3 million people are dead. My father in law never defends our country and its decision to go to Viet Nam but he would never be treasonous against our country as you clearly admit. Those are two big differences. But you are correct, I need to go back and learn about what this country was founded on--you know things like personal accountability, integrity, self reliance, respect for success, good old fashioned midwestern values of honesty, morality etc. I know that the era of nanny state government excess, entitlement expectations, living off the government or wealth redistribution, expectations of equality of outcomes regardless of equality of investment, merit, talent, hard work, effort etc, punish the successful, etc that we have now are really what our founders wanted right? I know you think the founders didnt believe there should be consequences for your personal actions and behavior right--they taught us that its always someone else's fault right? Its the GOP's fault that there is an education gap and rejection of any attempts at education reform by the union right? Its the GOP's fault that having a baby as a teenager or before marriage has a huge correlation with poverty and lack of job skills right? Its the GOP's fault that kids decide to go to college and rack up $100,000 of loans but dont want to pay them back right? Its the small business owners fault that he invested his last dime and worked 7 days a week to be successful and own a business so we must confiscate his earnings to give to those who chose a different less successful path. Its the GOP's fault that teachers decided to be teachers, cops decided to be cops and someone else decided to open his own store and ended up making more money, so we need to tax that successful person's earnings so we can adequately pay the other workers medical and pension benefits because its the GOP's fault that there pensions werent funded fully right? I think your founders were different than mine.

Indieparty--do you read english? Who do you think David is talking about when he is "lampooning" my ability to interpret or rationalize regulations. He is comparing my disputing 4000 lives saved with the 8 boys molested, and regardless you really think that was relevant or valid?

Republicant--I just happened to read the front page article of the USA today--you can dispute it or throw it away all you want, all I am doing is reading back what it said--and I know the USA is so right wing right? You got me again with that cognitive ability thingy--you are just so smart. I know you are so much smarter because you hide behind anonymity and I am willing to say who I am. I guess I should be afraid that you would stalk me. But the forcefullness of your arguments has proven me wrong yet again wow, its almost hard to see due to all that brilliance just wow.

Sarah: Excuse me, I have to go eat some fetuses and sh** out some Bibles.

Change Bibles to Quran. Let us know how that works out for you.

Sarah: Besides I've posted my ideas numerous times.

Oh, indulge us again with your great command of economics. You can do it!

Kirk,

Rant much? You made me realize why I stopped reading your posts.

You say your father-in-law "never defends our country and its decision to go to Viet Nam but he would never be treasonous against our country". Nope, he doesn't want to start at the beginning and admit that if we had never gone to Viet Nam to begin with those 3 million people wouldn't have died. That would be too much like admitting we had made a mistake. He would rather start at the back end and say that if we hadn't left Viet Nam those 3 million people wouldn't have been killed (I guess that means we would have just traipsed across the border of another sovereign nation and inserted ourselves into the fight. . . but nevermind). That's the typical bass-ackward thinking of people like him and you. No wonder you're not a lawyer anymore.

Anyone who defends Damage, of all people, has got a screw loose.

JAS,

I can sh** out Korans too, or even Torahs, they're all sh**table to me. Book of Mormon, whatever the Scientologists use, once you've sh** a single Holy Book, you've sh** them all, I say.

Here's my economic thoughts, since you asked so nicely. I hope you don't mind if I copy and paste from my prior posts, since it's a lot of typing...

Start with raising the retirement age and means testing for entitlements, and then we can slash defense spending in half, seeing as those are the two areas of government "spending" that are the real issue.

Than, let's reform our trade policies, stop China's currency manipulation, take away their MFN status, and stop exploiting their human rights violations. Here's an idea, let's force them into the 21st century instead of racing them back to the 19th and using them as a reason to devalue our own labor force.

And you know what that will do??? That will bring back jobs, ergo expanding the tax base and increasing revenues.

Than, let's look at Wall St. and how their interests are misaligned with the the citizens and the only thing they create is debt. They make bazillions, dolling out debt, and no longer even bother investing in innovative new ideas. Reinstate Glass-Stegall, break up the big banks, create fiduciary duties, force transparency, and most importantly make some capital requirements.

And you know what that will do??? That will create more jobs, ergo expanding the tax base and increasing revenues.

Than, will move on to our tax code that resembles Swiss cheese it has so many loopholes in it. Repealing the Bush Tax Cuts alone will bring the debt to GDP ratio under 50%.

And you know what that will do??? That will create even more revenue that we can then spend on things like R & D, infrastructure and education.

And you know what that will do??? That will create more jobs, thereby expanding the tax base and creating more revenue.

The only thing standing in the way of that are two SCOTUS decisions, Buckley v Valeo and Citizen's United. Those are the two decisions that allowed moneyed interests to buy our politicians.

It's not about more spending, or less spending, but SMART spending. Not more taxes, or less taxes, SMART taxes. Not more trading, or less trading, SMART trading.

A balanced budget amendment is a simplified solution, used to pander to simple people, in order to distract them from the actual corruption that's occurring, and the actual solutions that would take the power and bazillions the uber rich and politicians are making from their unholy alliance.

Did I do it??? But more importantly did I do it in a "lady like" manner?

Who do you think David is talking about when he is "lampooning" my ability to interpret or rationalize regulations. He is comparing my disputing 4000 lives saved with the 8 boys molested, and regardless you really think that was relevant or valid?

Kirk,

Seeing as how your started your rant today with that... YES, it is relevant and valid.

But after reading your Fox News fueled rant about "nanny state" and "punish the successful", I can see you are nothing more than an overly emotional right-wing fanatic.

Its the small business owners fault that he invested his last dime and worked 7 days a week to be successful and own a business so we must confiscate his earnings to give to those who chose a different less successful path.

So now paying taxes is "confiscating your money"? You must have HATED Reagan, that socialist raised your taxes 11 times.

But you are right, Kirk. Let's completely remove ALL taxes from "successful" people and only make poor people pay taxes. I mean, let's be honest... they are poor, so who the f*** cares about them? Great idea, I am sure our country will prosper with no "confiscation of money" from anyone that has money. Let's only "confiscate" the money of those who do not have money. Great idea.

Do you want to know why David "lampooned" your "ability to interpret or rationalize regulations"? It's because your rationalizations make no sense. You get overly emotional about taxes, make up lies about entitlement receivers and punishing success, and justify it by attacking all taxes that anyone with money has to pay. You lack the ability to see the big picture of what YOUR ideology will create.

But by all means, follow your own advice...

I know you think the founders didnt believe there should be consequences for your personal actions and behavior right--they taught us that its always someone else's fault right?

Just like you blame the liberals and Obama for EVERYTHING... right? Oh, I'm sorry... you also blame the poor, I forgot.

Change Bibles to Quran. Let us know how that works out for you.

JAS,

Bringing up Muslims, classy. Tell me, JAS, how does it feel to be part of Christianity, an Abrahamic religion. (That means that your religion is traced back to Abraham)

Now indulge us to your feelings of knowing that Islam is ALSO an Abrahamic religion. That must sting. How does it feel knowing that YOU worship the God of Abraham, and all those Muslims ALSO worship the God of Abraham? You worship the same deity. Come on, tell us how that feels.

Oh, and I am still waiting for you to NOT "run away" from being proved wrong yesterday about your college comments. Come on, you accused Sarah of running away... prove to us that you don't do the same thing. We're waiting.

Is it impossible for any of you with different opinions to just say what you said without having to add the silly attacks at the end? You dont even know me but you feel the need editorialize. I notice that you got offended by vile attacks on Damage but you find it ok to be disrespectful to someone else in the same manner. As for the bass-ackward, lets explore that further. So you want to judge in hindsight as to whether any military action was necessary. So under your theory, was the US justified or not going into the European world war II battle? Would lives have been saved either way? Could you absolutely know based on your hindsight ability? Did we prevent atrocities in Bosnia with our Air war and special forces on the ground? What about in the Phillipines? What in Korea, in hindsight did we prevent atrocities? In the middle east is a human life there worth less than an American life? Whether Iraq was ultimately justified or not, which side of the equation do you put an Iraqi life lost before the war? How about intervening in Libya? I am never going to defend every US military action but you seem to view an American life as being worth more, that even though you think the wealthy in the US have an obligation to distribute there wealth to those you deem worthy, the same doesnt hold true in terms of any ethical or moral obligation for the rest of the world?

By the way if you think I am ranting, you must hate the posts from Backhouse, IR, Pat etc that go on and on with think progress hatred for any GOP candidate or moderate viewpoint. Those posts are 10 times longer than mine

IndieParty

justoneguy,

So what you are saying is that I used too many big words for you... sorry, my bad.

BTW... when you say that Liberals want.... blah blah blah..

One always knows they made a point on FR when they are insulted with no substance....mucho thanks!!

Kirk, taxes are not about punishing the succesful. For each dollar earned (besides capital gain) the same is taxed. The first 10,000 you earn is taxed at the same rate as mine. Its only that next 10,000 that you make more that gets taxed more and it makes sense.

The reasoning is behind the marginal tax rate is to factor in the cost of living.If I make 10,000 and you make 20,000 and we can both live off 8000 dollars and there is a tax rate of 30% after you factor in cost of living. I would have to decrease my basic standard of living by 1000 dollars you woud have 6000 dollars to do with as you please. Do you think we should both be taxed at 30%.

Your argument that you were more succesful and deserve your reward sounds great but as that person gets poorer the bigger that burden becomes. Let me take that number down to 5,000 where I am already 3000 below basic living conditions before taxes after that I am being asked to give up another 1,500. The government does not want income taxes to be the decision fator whether people put food on the table or not.

My biggest problem is the people who want to cut aid to the poor and leave them to fend for themselves, would be the first to complain when they saw them living in the streets of their neighborhood. Not everyone brought on poverty/being uneducated on to themselves

Kirk, I do not think you are unintelligent, and I do not think that of many who post on here. So far it seems you and I only have different opinions and I am just presenting mine just as you have the right to presetn yours. I only objected greatly to your rant about punishing the rich and such. I have posted many times that I hate the insults that go both ways. Those on the right are usually worse in severity from my short experience here.

Indie party--and you wonder why its difficult to have rational debates when you throw out the ridiculous. I see the big picture and have probably lived it much longer than you. First why not use facts that are not embellishments and why not talk in less politicized emotions. First, I actually voted for John Anderson the third party candidate not Reagan. I actually voted for Clinton and have probably voted for more democrats than GOP candidates in all races. So trying to label me is just typical for anyone on here that disagrees with Obama's financial views. Second, Reagan lowered taxes, simplified the tax code at the time, created incentives for manufacturing via the investment tax credit, research tax credit and accelerated depreciation in order to bring manufacturing and the real estate industry out of the deepest recession seen at that time. Guess what it worked and government revenue as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed and GDP growth was very strong for 7 years until the first Bush Iraq war. As the economy recovered, some of these incentives were closed, tax rates were raised to take advantage of the growing GDP. I am no idealogue so get real I have no problem with increasing taxes in the right environment.

Yes taxes are confiscating someone else's wealth and success. I know there are very super wealthy people who are taking advantage of the current unfair system but fixing that doesnt mean you have to raise taxes for those working successful people. Give me a break about the poor. They pay no taxes now and never will thats a straw man argument that you use to try avoid the discussion. No is proposing a tax or confiscation on the poor which as you know would be a waste of time dont you think? By the way, what lie am I making up about entitlement receivers? Given that all of us are, I want to make sure I know which lie that I am making up so I can stop.

As for blaming Obama or liberals, thats a nonsensical comment as my only beef with him is economic. If you think I am socially conservative think again. And when did I blame the poor, what I said is that we all have choices and yes those choices have consequences. If I choose to become an accountant and you choose to become a salesman and you make twice as much money as me, is that your fault or mine or anyones? If I choose to have a child at 16 or addicted to drugs at 40 and now poor, who chose that? You seem to act like every behavior is free from its consequences and someone else's responsibility to make sure it gets fixed. If your neighbor makes the same amount of money as you but took a much bigger mortgage and now its under water because they spent every penny they had and couldnt afford the payments and you were conservative and thrifty, is it the government's job to bail your neighbor out? How about your neighbor living high and mighty and never saved for their kids college but had better cars, vacations etc and you were thrifty and saved for your kids and along comes Obama and says, your neighbor doesnt have any assets so we are going to send their kids to college but since you saved your money and had to drive a Prius, you have to pay for your kids college education? You wouldnt like it would you when behaviorial choices have no consequences

Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe we have in Sarah-3043284 a truly first class lady like bitch wielding a finely honed pen. Drinks are on me, a JAS1 slayer is in our humble midst.

Akeem, I actually am very familiar with tax law and I am a CPA as I took it out of college before law school but I am not licensed. I dont disagree with anything you have said. I hate the embellishment of the extremes. The left uses the super wealthy and an aggregious example to say the wealthy need to be taxed more while the right says that 50% of taxpayers dont pay any federal income tax. Both are right in the extreme and use these arguments to make invalid points. I hate the class rhetoric that will be used to punish the working successful small business owner just as I hate the fact that our tax code is so inequitable and full of social engineering that allows 50% of the taxpayers from paying anything. The whole thing needs to be revised made simpler, fairer and progressive. As for the poor, my positions against the government taking more revenue is based on its inability to spend it productively. Government assistance programs and entitlement programs are not being cut and ahve grown to levels that are unsustainable and its been proven that just throwing money at the problem doesnt solve it. Otherwise the war on poverty wouldnt be worse now rather than better after 16 trillion dollars and 40 years later.

I appreciate your comments and my guess Akeem is that we are alot closer in perspective than you think. Just because I disagree with Obama's financial policies at times doesnt make me a hater no different than I hated Bush and not slap happy about any of the current candidates. As one poster said, I always feel like I choosing which STD I want.

Ideology,

Don't threaten me with a good time, that's all I have to say about that. And, thanks, buddy! Like I said, timeless and regal. :)

Kirk.

Republicant--I just happened to read the front page article of the USA today--you can dispute it or throw it away all you want, all I am doing is reading back what it said--and I know the USA is so right wing right? You got me again with that cognitive ability thingy--you are just so smart. I know you are so much smarter because you hide behind anonymity and I am willing to say who I am. I guess I should be afraid that you would stalk me. But the forcefullness of your arguments has proven me wrong yet again wow, its almost hard to see due to all that brilliance just wow.

Um....you used the USA and Rassmussen polls in a lame attempt to try and make the case that Obama is behind in the polls. Now, putting aside the fact that polls now are practically worthless, your statements were false. Obama is not behind Santorum in the polls. He is behind in one poll, that appears to be an outlier. Rassmussen has him up.

The reality, once again, is that I proved your delusional point of view wrong, AGAIN. And AGAIN, you refused to acknowledge reality.

That's all from me. I am slightly touched by this statement.....

At least Republicant attempts to actually prove me substantively wrong intertwined in his hate

(I actually do prove you substantively wrong - intertwined with mocking you - but thanks anyway.....;-)

Sarah: Start with raising the retirement age and means testing for entitlements, and then we can slash defense spending in half, seeing as those are the two areas of government "spending" that are the real issue.

How do you think those that paid in 6-12% of the paycheck for 35 years will react when the government says "You're not getting it back"? Slash defense spending in half? How do you think the private companies will react to that? Think there might be a few layoffs? You did say you didn't want to ruin the economy, think cutting defense in half will help or hurt the economy? You need less more babble and more think.

Than, let's reform our trade policies, stop China's currency manipulation, take away their MFN status, and stop exploiting their human rights violations. Here's an idea, let's force them into the 21st century instead of racing them back to the 19th and using them as a reason to devalue our own labor force.

Stop China's currency manipulation? Should we stop ours too? China may soon take away OUR MFN status. You can't be this dense.

And you know what that will do??? That will bring back jobs, ergo expanding the tax base and increasing revenues.

You forgot the magic fairy dust. You see, we're at the point China tells us what to do, we do owe them a lot of money, and we're going to need a lot more from them to cover our deficits.

Than, let's look at Wall St. and how their interests are misaligned with the the citizens and the only thing they create is debt. They make bazillions, dolling out debt, and no longer even bother investing in innovative new ideas. Reinstate Glass-Stegall, break up the big banks, create fiduciary duties, force transparency, and most importantly make some capital requirements.

We did much of this with Frank-Dodd. Those regulations couldn't stop MF Global from stealing a billion dollars from their customers and going bankrupt.

And you know what that will do??? That will create more jobs, ergo expanding the tax base and increasing revenues.

Magic fairy dust again. You have quite a linkage going on here, all with weak links.

Than, will move on to our tax code that resembles Swiss cheese it has so many loopholes in it. Repealing the Bush Tax Cuts alone will bring the debt to GDP ratio under 50%.

That would be the Obama tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010. And are you talking all those tax cuts, not just for the "rich"? Because that's not what Obama is talking about, he wants the "middle-class" tax cuts to remain in place. That being the case, only $70 billion in additional revenue will be coming in, hardly anything that will significantly bring down the deficit. Taxing our way to prosperity will not work.

And you know what that will do??? That will create even more revenue that we can then spend on things like R & D, infrastructure and education.

And you know what that will do??? That will create more jobs, thereby expanding the tax base and creating more revenue.

And we just got done spending $800 billion on what? Where are the jobs? We have at best a 2% GDP, massive unemployment, record numbers on food stamps, and unemployment extensions.

The only thing standing in the way of that are two SCOTUS decisions, Buckley v Valeo and Citizen's United. Those are the two decisions that allowed moneyed interests to buy our politicians.

Against freedom of speech are you?

It's not about more spending, or less spending, but SMART spending. Not more taxes, or less taxes, SMART taxes. Not more trading, or less trading, SMART trading.

Wow. Just wow. How naive. "Smart taxes" - what exactly is that? "Smart spending" - what in the world is that? Green energy and not Keystone perhaps? This rhetoric may work on your liberal friends, but without specifics you have a hollow argument.

A balanced budget amendment is a simplified solution, used to pander to simple people, in order to distract them from the actual corruption that's occurring, and the actual solutions that would take the power and bazillions the uber rich and politicians are making from their unholy alliance.

You're into this religion thing, and not in a good way.

Did I do it???

Not even close.

Kirk

Reagan lowered taxes, simplified the tax code at the time, created incentives for manufacturing via the investment tax credit, research tax credit and accelerated depreciation in order to bring manufacturing and the real estate industry out of the deepest recession seen at that time.

Reagan lowered the top tier tax bracket first... realized it was too much, and then raised taxes 11 times (Funny how you left that part out). He also lowered the top tier bracket but INCREASED the capital gains rate.

Naturally, you only focus on when he lowered taxes, and pay no attention to all the times he raised them. And you say you are not partisan... PLEASE. That strategy is directly out of the Limbaugh/Beck/Fox playbook. If you are not partisan, why didn't you mention all the times he raised taxes, and raised capital gains?

They pay no taxes now and never will thats a straw man argument that you use to try avoid the discussion.

Except for the regressive sales tax and payroll taxes that they DO, in fact, pay. Let me guess... at this point you will respond by saying: "Oh, I was only talking about income taxes". Once again, right out of the Fox News playbook.

Let me explain this playbook for you:

First you make a blitz attack with a comment that the "poor don't pay any taxes"... an obvious emotional ploy to get people on your side. Because what better way to get people to agree with you than to pit them against their fellow man. "Ya, f*** those poor people who don't pay taxes when I do"

Second, the other team reacts to your blitz in a defensive maneuver, correcting you and pointing out that they DO pay taxes, in the form of all the regressive taxes.

Third, you try to distract the opposing team with a lateral play, I call this the "semantics game". You attempt to shift the conversation sideways, ONLY focusing on income tax. Then, you hope that if you push income tax hard enough, people will forget about all the other regressive taxes that the poor pay more for (as a percentage of total income).

Did I miss anything?

You seem to act like every behavior is free from its consequences and someone else's responsibility to make sure it gets fixed.

When did I ever say that? Come on, show me one time where I said anything remotely similar to that?

What I have said is that we live in reality, and not a fairytale land where everyone makes the responsible choice and we all ride unicorns to work who fart rainbows.

In reality, sometimes we have to accept necessary evils to maintain a civilized society. That means that sometimes we have to bail out people who make bad decisions (like welfare). Do I like it? F*** no. Can we just get rid of it and let people starve? Not unless you want anarchy.

And yes, life isn't fair. Sometimes your neighbor makes a bad decision and lucks out. Boo-f***ing-hoo. I bet you took tax deductions for any kids you had, didn't you? Why should you get a discount for acting like a god damn cockroach and crapping out kids left and right, when other people who don't have kids pay more. Where is your f***ing outrage over that? Oh, that's right... if it benefits YOU then you shut your mouth about it.

So before you get on your high horse, complaining about a neighbor that didn't save for their kids to go to college, why don't you look at the people who didn't have kids, and see how they feel about you and your tax discounts. It's real easy to complain about something that someone else gets... but it's not so easy to look at yourself, is it? I guarantee there are people that can look at YOU and complain about benefits YOU have received from the government, based on your "choices".

Kirk, I think your argument is what angers many conservatives when Obama says "fair share". This terminology does not sit well with me either. If you separate those making under 40,000 a year my opinion to this argument changes drastically and alligns more towards yours. That is where the cost of living idead begins to fade and as you move higher up the income spectrum life choices come more to play. Unfortunately from the right, I always hear them attacking low wage earners and I never feel that is fair. There are many of them who are simply there due to circumstances.

I do not like paying taxes, I hate the idea some of my money goes somwhere else but I still understand the need. In our current economic climate I would barely be more disappointed in a tax increase or decrease. One sets me back, the other our country.

You are right Sarah. But don't worry, they aren't going to win the election. They have already lost and they know it. All this ballyhoo about choosing a candidate is just political farce of the lowest kind. Enjoy it and fear not for 2012. Obama will be re-elected and the gods will smile.

2016 is a different story and I'll admit I'm worried about the future. But, like I tell my wife, there's always Costa Rica. Beautiful country, lovely people, socialized medicine and a low cost of living. We can live quite well on our retirement in Costa Rica. I speak enough Spanish to get by and if the GOP regains the White House in 2016 you can forward my mail to Costa Rica, thank you very much. C'mon down, you can stay with your foster Grandpa and Grandma. We'll sit on the beach, drink Dos Equis Amber and play guitar and chess. Hope you like dogs, we have three.

But we're safe, for now.

Obama/Biden 2012

Skip

You can't take Sarah away from us... she is one of the few rays of sanity left. Without her, who else would help me defend against the religious extremists who want to force their outdated views on us?

Hehe, I voted for Santorum. Funniest vote I've ever cast.

I agree Akeem, and I have never advocated any differently. Look at the anger and the assumptions that Indie Party makes in the previous posts. He is making arguments and assumptions about my views that I have never said because of his blind defense of Obama and inability to see these issues outside of political parties. I have never said the rich shouldnt pay more but I want to know what that means. I think a fair more simpler tax code and clearly progressive but all the loopholes, social engineering and unfairness is gone. You could create a rate much lower and still raise revenue. I have no problem with the rich giving a much higher share, what I hate is the class warfare rhetoric that comes from guys like Indie Party and David in the interests of getting thier politician elected.

Indie party--please do some research and read before you post. I said Reagan raised taxes and I have no problem with that. I think that is what bothers you isnt it? You are not "schooling" me as that doesnt impact anything I said or view. I have no problem raising taxes in a rising economy. Look Clinton raised income taxes and lowered the capital gains rate and it spurred investment in the internet boom raising tax collection as a percentage of GDP to the highest level ever. What is the issue? Now lets discuss the other salient points you tried to make. Payroll taxes are not regressive because they are your contribution to your government provided retirement plan in which you will recieve a huge return on your contributions much greater than the private sector. Unless you want to consider social security welfare which seems to run counter to the progressive argument so sorry payroll taxes arent regressive or even a tax. Sales taxes fund the state budgets so you will have to talk to your states about that and how they decide to collect revenue. Currently, the federal income tax, both corporate and individual make up the almost all the federal revenues so my so called fox argument is accurate. By the way, its a fact not a fox thing. And for your final rant, I have news for you YOU MADE MY POINT. I agree and that was my point all along. People who dont have kids shouldnt be penalized and I agree with you, however, one small point is that your example really doesnt have anything to do with Obama's extension of this behavior has consequences argument via bailouts, nanny statism etc. Its interesting that you cant seem to have a conversation without going off as I bet it would be easier and more credible if you tried.

REpublicant--even for you that was one of your lamest attempts at a reply. Of all people looking for me to cite something and when I do its still met with your wonderful sense of humor. I could care less if you think USA or Rasmussen is wrong or right, it was on the front page and thats all I said. As for its accuracy, you will have plenty of opportunity come November to gloat if Obama wins. The difference between you and I is if he doesnt, I wont say a thing. First, because all of this juvenile stuff you like to be a part of doesnt interest me and second, I have no confidence at the moment that any GOP candidate will necessarily do better. But I know you feel much better thinking you are successfully mocking anonymously and that you school people with your brilliance. How is that working out for you so far?

Go Sarah! Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious. There have been a lot of times where i see "lefties" posting sarcastic comments - that are based in fact and quite funny, although a bit scathing, then I read on and see the "righties" posting horrible, name-calling comments with no response to the substance of what a person posted, just talking crap on principle. It's quite interesting. That's not to say people on the left never name-call, because they do, but not only is it usually, as Sarah points out, more irreverent than openly hostile, but it's fewer and farther between than I see from those on the right.

David Walker - great post above, and I have always always enjoyed your posts - you write what I could only hope to articulate even half as well.

I have never considered myself to be strongly aligned to one side or another, although I always considered myself more liberal than conservative - based on the real definitions of those words, not the political meanings now associated with them. That's because I considered myself open-minded as opposed to old-fashioned, that's how I thought of it when I was younger - conservative meant "traditional" in my mind. My opinions have developed more over the years, but I was never politically involved or active, until 2008 when I registered for the first time so I could vote for Obama. And that had nothing to do with Democrat/Republican, and everything to do with the fact that I saw a younger, less Washington-institutionalized person that seemed to have real ideas, a positive outlook, and a real motivation to try and change the political landscape of our country, which had become mired in stupidity. Then I started reading these blogs late last year out of curiosity. I was still open-minded, just honestly curious about what people had to say. But I have been absolutely struck by the obvious logic there is behind the posts from the "left" and the obvious lack thereof behind the greater majority of posts from the "right." I watched the Republican response to the last SOTU address, and was amazed that there are people in this country that can listen to that and do anything but shake their heads, it was that bad. I never assumed Republicans would be stupid, and I honestly expected that presidential nominees would be reasonably intelligent and qualified. I knew I maybe wouldn't agree with everything they had to say, but I always expected to respect them; after all, I don't always agree with what every Democrat has to say either. This year has proven me wrong, I'm sorry to say.

To paraphrase Bill Maher from his recent stand-up show on Yahoo - the left isn't really that left anymore, but moved more to the center, while the right took a trip to crazy-town. That seems true to me - the left has tried to be reasonable and logical, attempts compromise and strives for fairness, while the right keeps going more and more extreme in their views, simply out of spite and principle (at least I imagine so, since there seems to be no good reason for it). And if I have learned anything, it is that extremes - no matter which direction - are always bad.

AlexM-2364525 - engine power has nothing to do with driving through snow. where I live in Oregon, where there's snow AND a lot of environmentally conscious people, the most popular vehicles are Subarus with all-wheel drive and good handling. and for people like me, who drive a Neon that handles like a fat cow on ice skates, there's all-weather or snow tires, or even chains if absolutely necessary, although i never use them - it's called driving carefully. Do you think driving a truck with a lot of engine power makes you safer? More engine power can actually be more dangerous in icy conditions. I can't tell you how often when driving over the mountains or in town, I see people in trucks and SUVs that haul ass, thinking that because of what they drive they won't slide like a car will. Ice is ice - and it's sad how often I later see those same idiots flipped over or on their sides down the road. There are a lot of rural areas, and people seem to do just fine without giant gas-guzzling trucks. I don't have anything against trucks - if they are necessary for some purpose that you actually need a big cargo bed for, or engine power to HAUL something, but the people that drive giant empty trucks all over town because they look cool, and have the gall to whine about gas prices, make me want to vomit. Just my two cents.

Kirk,

So comments like "confiscating my money" and "the poor pay no taxes" translates to...

I have no problem raising taxes

You don't throw phrases out like that when you have no problem raising taxes. Those are word-for-word Fox News / Rush (drug addict) Limbaugh talking points.

As far as the discussion of what are sales and payroll taxes, you can twist it anyway you want, that is not the point. You said the poor pay "no taxes"... NO TAXES. That was your exact quote. And just like I said, following the playbook, you tried to lateral the discussion into what sales and payroll taxes "really" are. The point was that they DO pay taxes, regardless of how you define those taxes... they DO PAY.

But thank you for following the playbook I outlined. Although you would have saved yourself some time by just cut and pasting my comment.

one small point is that your example really doesnt have anything to do with Obama's extension of this behavior has consequences argument via bailouts, nanny statism etc

And you think that ANYONE in the GOP will do anything different? Really? You honestly believe that?

Let me help bring you into reality. Life is not fair, someone will always get a better break than you (your neighbors who did not save), you will get a break over other people (those who did not have kids), and neither Obama nor any of the Republican retards will change the tax code. Why?

(1) The lobbyists will not let them do anything that makes the 1% pay even a penny more. Romney sent an army of lobbyists to Washington the last time it was even discussed.

(2) Congress and the House, with whoever wins, is going to give the President the middle finger and refuse to help them do anything.

So, knowing that no candidate will change the tax code, this comes down to the only other thing the candidates are pushing... social agenda bull-s***. Now if I have to choose between Obama, and some piece of s*** that wants to impose his religious law on me... knowing that neither will change taxes in the slightest... I am going to choose the person who will not force me to live by his outdated doctrine.

Am I a blind follower of Obama? HA... you're funny. Personally I like Buddy Roemer because I agree with his anti-lobbyists and anti-Citizens United stance. But I also live in reality and know that he has zero chance at getting elected. So I default to the candidate that can mind his own god damn business and stay out of my bedroom.

Kirk.

You misunderstand. I was not in any way saying that Obama would win in November. It is way too far out to suggest that.

I was merely pointing out that your post suggesting the polls show Obama behind Santorum was inaccurate, and your assumption based on that inaccuracy was, as such, false as well.

In case you are confused again, the assumption in your post is that the Obama administration is worried about Santorum. Now, while Santorum is certainly on their radar now, I think it is a stretch to say they are worried. To be sure, Santorum could certainly win (politics is extremely unpredictable), but he has some serious weaknesses. I remember him from when he was a Senator. I also remember why he lost his seat. The reasons are extremely relevant in a general election. I think in this one in particular. The contrast he would create, I think, would help Obama.

All that being said...I would rather see Ronmey than Santorum. Cause ya never know.....and Santorum would be an absolute disaster.

Your gonna see Romney Repulic... as he shows Mr. Obama out his free-spending door!!!

Thanks, Grandpa Skip, I'll definitely come to Costa Rica, but I'm bring Indie!

JAS,

How do you think those that paid in 6-12% of the paycheck for 35 years will react when the government says "You're not getting it back"? Slash defense spending in half? How do you think the private companies will react to that? Think there might be a few layoffs? You did say you didn't want to ruin the economy, think cutting defense in half will help or hurt the economy? You need less more babble and more think.

Oh, so you're a conservative, but you don't want to touch entitlements, just programs for poor folk? Well considering that we could make the cut off for any one with substantial, private, retirement funds, I don't think they'd much care. I can't imagine Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Mitt Romney whining about not getting their SS checks.

The private military contractors won't have any more sway over our defense budget if you overturn Buckley v Valeo and Citizen's United, did you ignore that part? You also must have ignored the part where I was talking about Wall St investment, trade reform, R & D, infrastructure, and education all creating jobs.

Don't you want people to NOT work for the government and the government to be smaller?

You forgot the magic fairy dust. You see, we're at the point China tells us what to do, we do owe them a lot of money, and we're going to need a lot more from them to cover our deficits.

Except for the fact that we're China's largest consumer. Without us, China has no one to pawn their sh** off on. And again, how are we going to pay those deficits, if you keep making excuses for why nothing works.

Stop China's currency manipulation? Should we stop ours too? China may soon take away OUR MFN status. You can't be this dense.

China can't take away our MFN status it's bestowed and revoked through the WTO. Who's also getting the shaft because of China's unfair tariff policy, which is in complete conflict with the agreement given to developing nations granted MFN. And, we're the reserve currency, by the way.

That would be the Obama tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010. And are you talking all those tax cuts, not just for the "rich"? Because that's not what Obama is talking about, he wants the "middle-class" tax cuts to remain in place. That being the case, only $70 billion in additional revenue will be coming in, hardly anything that will significantly bring down the deficit. Taxing our way to prosperity will not work.

So now, you don't wanna reform entitlements, cut spending, and you don't like tax cuts??? And you're a conservative? Or do you agree with Obmama? I disagree with Obama, they should all go. If you fix trade and Wall St, we'll create enough jobs that we won't need stimulis or tax breaks. And nothing changes the fact that doing this will bring debt to GDP under 50%. Do you not want to cut the deficit?

And we just got done spending $800 billion on what? Where are the jobs? We have at best a 2% GDP, massive unemployment, record numbers on food stamps, and unemployment extensions.

Setting up programs and legislation that benefit only multinational corporations and the uber rich who have bought it from our politicians. And keeping the system we have now in place so they can continue to prosper.

Against freedom of speech are you?

Not at all, don't you remember our whole sh** out the Bible argument??? But I can make a case for why money isn't speech, can you make a case for how it is???

Wow. Just wow. How naive. "Smart taxes" - what exactly is that? "Smart spending" - what in the world is that? Green energy and not Keystone perhaps? This rhetoric may work on your liberal friends, but without specifics you have a hollow argument.

Well considering it involves "smart" I wouldn't expect you to, (now that was leaning more towards nasty). Smart taxes would be taxes that bring in considerable revenues, smart spending would be focusing on the areas of our country that need fixing, instead of continuing to bloat areas that are so big we can't even audit them.

So, JAS, you made a valiant, although piss poor, attempt to pick apart someone else's ideas. Do you have any of your own, or do you just get your rocks off trying to instigate fights with people young enough to be your grandchildren?

I mean, do you have anything besides excuses and sarcasm? And psst, your sarcasm isn't funny, it's not your forte, I'd stick with, knitting, maybe???

Let's here it JAS, how do we fix this???

Wow Indie party, calm down take a breath and when you accuse someone of going on a rant maybe you should look in the mirror. You again make assumptions and attack me for absolutely no valid reason. Why are you such an angry person. I am pro choice, pro gay marriage (and you realize Obama is not) and for the most part socially liberal. I would legalize drugs or at a minimum eliminate the draconian war on drugs as a law enforcement issue. You are way off base if you are trying to label me because it makes you feel better. There are millions of us fiscally conservative folks who have voted both parties who dont feel we are represented by anyone. I cant stand the socially conservative platform of the GOP and Santorum's comments are not my position. But I cant stand the fiscal platform of the democrats and the view that government is better and a slow crawl to a European style of economic governance is best is wrong. Just look at California, Illinois, NY etc to prove that it doesnt work. Dont mistake my position against the government mandating that employers pay for contraceptives as any support for religion or catholics as I personally think the church should have been prosecuted under RICO statutes for their molestation problems. My opinion is based purely on economics and government intrusion in a financial benefit issue for their employees.

Your taking small parts of my post to make a point that is inconsequential to the larger discussion is worthless and part of your anger. You mentioned that life isnt fair as your defense for government intervention or bailouts etc, well if thats your defense or argument, that works for tax policy too (but I dont agree with it). Thats just a weak defense on your part and life isnt fair should never be the defense for poor government economic policy whether you believe politicians will change it or not. As for I said the poor dont pay tax, ok you got me they pay sales tax, gas tax, telecommunications tax, excise taxes, alcohol taxes etc so what. You are trying to distort the discussion off of what the main points were and you know it. What dumb ass playbook are you even talking about. I have never once listened to Rush Limbaugh as I dont have any interest as I would be more of a Howard Stern kind of guy. I have no idea whether the GOP would do any better and there is a good chance the answer is no but that has nothing to do with my views on Obama's policies. So when you are prepared to have a substantive discussion come back and post but so far you have even addressed one substantive point.

Republicant--why dont you address the polls accuracy or lack thereof with USA Today or Rasmussen. Your opinion otherwise, is just that an opinion which is why posting with you is so tiresome. You dont seem to understand that underlying logic to your posts but I cant seem to get through. Whether Santorum is behind or ahead doesnt change my premise as it was no different when Obama and Hillary were skewering each other. The candidate that emerged in this case Obama was then stronger than ever to take on the GOP challenger. The candidates are always the weakest during the primary and you know that so not sure why you again feel the need to be such a jerk.

As for Santorum, unfortunately I agree with you (and at this point I really hate saying that) and would prefer Romney if thats the choices we have.

disgusting pat

Amen to that Pat.

But then we would't get to see how little the uneducated tea people GOP Koch republicans think before they post. Besides the comic relief they provide.

So, anyone that has views that differ from yours are lying whores? Wow, just wow. Who is the hate-monger now?

This is typical...... all opinions must agree!