THE LUNATIC FRINGE at that

The whole "English in Puerto Rico" thing, relevant to no issue (as in Puerto Rican statehood is not even on the table at this time) illustrates how well he would do in say, nuclear arms negotiations. Which is a really scary thought!

since frothy has announced that he will attack IRAN, there's a lot more to lose with THAT lunatic in power

President Obama is a centrist, moron. If you weren't a deluded right wing hack you would realize that.

Larry snorted way too much over the weekend! Hope it wears off, soon. For the sake of Larry's mental health.

I'd love to see one conservative idiot come out of the wood work and try to argue that Rick Santorum can provide any benefits to this country what so ever??

All they can do is complain Obama this Obama that.

What exactly does Rick Santorum bring to the table that I couldn't get from a lifesized cardboard conservative figurine?

We can't afford 4 more years of his changes. I can't anyway.

get used to it - it's virtually a certainty

You have your nose up my "crack", and that ain't "victory" you're smelling, bub.

Are ANY of the RETHUGs "realistic"? From what I've SEEN, "delusion" is the name of that tune. They PERSONIFY the "reichtwingnutreligionazi" point of view.

Bob - you are one angry little man, aren't you?

well, don - you can try - no I didn't get your name incorrect it IS Don Quixote, isn't it.

Those windmills are out there just waiting...

That would be aawesome IF they had a brokered convention and choose an ultra conservative candidate like Insanetorum.

He would get absolutely anhilated by Obama and would no doubt remove Alf Landon from the cellar of presidential candidates.

I tend to say "Frothy is just PLAYING WITH HIMSELF" - the fact that he is a few cards short of a full deck is apparent

WRONG WRONG WRONG! go vote FOR the big sack of SH IT and TRY to make him the nominee. He's a lot less of a potential THREAT than Willard and a great "straight" man (pun intended) I mean, he's dumber than a SACK OF ROCKS...

OH HELL NO! and lose all of the associated HUMOR? The COMIC RELIEF?

Nver say nver.

Thank you Vic for your well-reasoned and informative comment. Now run along and play in your sandbox.

Another well-reasoned and informative comment. Vic is waiting for you in the sandbox.

Yeah, we can't possibly go with the guy under whose presidency we saw the stock market double from the day he took office. We can't possibly go with the guy under whose presidency we saw the U.S. auto industry rescued from total demise, saving jobs. We can't possibly go with the guy who finally tracked down Bin Ladin. We'd much rather have a bunch of obstructionists Republicans whose only goal in life is to see that they enrich their benefactors and impoverish the rest of us and could not care less about getting anything else accomplished. Gee, maybe not. Wake up! Give Obama a Congress that will work with him and another four years.

President Obama said "9 trillion dollar deficits are UnAmerican, and I will cut it in half in my first term." 15.5 trillion and climbing now! Unemployment will not rise beyond 8%, if this Stimulus is passed, and will be at 6% at the end of my first term." Gallup said last week that it is 9.1%. Poverty levels have grown by over 6 million. 46.7 million on food stamps, a double digit increase. 22 million unemployed with millions more underemployed or no longer looking. Regular gas price when inaugurated, $1.84. Shall I go on?

Gosh Dahly, maybe we should go back to the Bush/Republican policies because they worked so well.

you can "go on" if you want, but the president doesn't control gas prices, and doesn't control global economics, or even the US economy. The bursting of the housing bubble was the causitive factor of everything you posted - unemployment, poverty, food stamps. Obama had nothing to do with the housing bubble.

the economy was going to stink for a number of years after the housing bubble burst, no matter who was president.

This is just a History lesson. I am sending it to all regardless of party .
I bet I know who wouldn't read it -- those afraid of the truth. It is history and nothing can change it.
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007,
the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start
of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the
103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that
everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the House:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember that day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and
4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars
of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was
financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy"
(and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress,
especially BARNEY!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Bush may have
been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were
driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from
Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on
spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing
resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they
passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time?
He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked
like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the
Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit
spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama,
who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. ! ! !
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand
that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends this information on!
"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those
who vote for a living."

So everything the President said he was going to do, and didn't is not because he is in way over his head and just very foolish for saying it in the first place, And since his word is worthless, we should all believe him now?

yawn. a cut and paste fox letter? lol.

its easy to cherry pick "facts" that "prove" anything you want.

the REAL fact is that our current economic distress is the result of the housing bubble bursting..and resulting global economic meltdown..that was not caused by the 2007 democratic congress, nor obama. it was caused by many people.

you can blame anyone you want, of course, but you can't prove anything. :)

Dahly America has been in reccesion since the first term of Mr. Bush W. maybe you were not following your financial news, you need to see the documentary where the now head of the IMF was telling Bush W. and his Finance Minister about what will happen in Europe and there will be rippling effect in America. They told her that will never happen because they are on solid ground. Remember when President Obama and John McCain were on the campaign, Mc Cain encourage Obama to go with him to the press conference Bush W. was holding at the time to talk about the American economy apparently you have a short memory. The slide never started with this President it was happening a hell of a long time ago but Bush W. never made it known to you Americans because they were trying to see if they could have rescued the economy before the 2008. President Obama he is just trying hard to bring the economy together. He met two wars, he didn't start them. America always go to war under a Republican President don't forget that.

VT, Just shows you are full of it. Facts are just that, facts. You'd support anything so called "Progressive" whether or not they are proven to be an abject fraud, liar and in it only for their own pocket. "Clean Energy." What a load of crap. So many of the taxpayer beneficiaries turn out to be huge Obama campaign contributors. The fact that they go belly up and cost the 50% of us who pay Federal taxes, tough beans. Obama, Axelrod, Jarrett, Imanuel, Gibbs, what a pack of thieves. And you and you ilk want them to continue on, burying the US in debt. Never mind, you're to stupid to argue with.

The GOP's Wars? This is "borrowed" from an earlier poster.

Get your head out of the sand, these are the people you support and what they said about WMD's. Truth hurts when it hits you in the face.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Bush invade Iraq and forced the US to "stay the course" as long as he was in office. The fact that some Democrats at times were in favor of the idea does not it make it any colossally less stupid. And unlike the Democrats, the Republican members of Congress were pretty much unanimous in their support of the Iraq War. So was the Iraq War a good idea or not?

Could you go back and give us the Republican quotes on this? After all - you do want to be "Fair and Balanced" don't you?

No, s/he wants to be a bigoted idiot.

reichwingnuttereligionazis, of course

When Santorum fantasizes, he sees the same thing.